Tim Loughton: All too often, when I go down to Worthing beach to see the last vestiges of the Worthing fishing fleet, and to buy my fresh cod and have it freshly filleted in front of me, I am told, "We haven't got any, but you should have seen all the ones that we had to throw away." Is it not time that we got rid of the obscenity that is fish discarding, and piloted a scheme that at least allows fishermen to land some of their by-catch and be rewarded for part of it? We should incentivise fishermen with more environmentally friendly policies, and get a fair deal for Britain's fishermen, fish-eaters and fish.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman supports the Government's commitment to tackling the issue of discards. Undoubtedly, as I have maintained, it has always been the people who fill up their trolleys in the supermarkets and fishermen themselves who most hate the idea of discards. We have some innovative ways to tackle discards, including real-time closures, the conservation credit scheme, avoidance of spawning grounds and the high grading ban, of which I am sure that he is aware. We will continue to work in the European Union to make sure that we have overarching policies to tackle the issue.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I applaud my hon. Friend for the way in which he has represented, and continues to represent, the issues relating to ensuring a viable fishing industry in his constituency and elsewhere. He is right to say that his local fishermen have led the way, through the conservation credits scheme, and by coming up with some of the most innovative ways to avoid discards and to tackle the issue of the sustainable, viable use of the seas. We continue to have dialog on the issue with Joe Borg, the European Commissioner. We knew that it was a tough ask of our fishermen to get the balance right for the year ahead, but my hon. Friend and I, and the rest of the House, agree that we have to achieve a sustainable fishery not only for the 12 months ahead, but for the next 10 years and for the long term.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am looking forward to visiting the hon. Gentleman's constituency in the near future. He is certainly right that one of the challenges that we face, in terms of how we organise fisheries policy in the EU, is getting the balance right, so that we can fish throughout the year. We are in danger of exhausting stocks in the spring, but we also want our fishermen to fish in the autumn and winter. There are difficult choices to make, not only about whiting but about cod and other fish. We always continue to keep the matter under review. Together with the Marine and Fisheries Agency and our scientists, we continue to look at how things are going month by month. However, we cannot escape the fact—no Government can—that we have difficult issues of sustainability on our seas. As I have said, we want to make sure that we are fishing not just this year, but in the next 10, 20 and 100 years and more.

Anne Main: Another crucial pollinator is the butterfly, as I am sure that the Secretary of State accepts. Butterflies have been declining for 20 years; six species have become extinct and 54 are in massive decline. Butterfly World is an enormous project in St. Albans. Will the Minister visit it and consider giving a similar amount of investment to ensuring the future of butterflies? If he could flutter up to us, we would be delighted to see him.

Graham Stuart: One of the key recommendations of the Pitt review was the establishment of a Cabinet Committee to oversee flood prevention plans and strategies, yet we learned last month that the Committee has never even met. Thousands of my constituents were driven from their homes in 2007; many of them are traumatised every time they hear the sound of heavy rain. All they ask from their Government is that the Government do everything possible to ensure that such a catastrophe is less likely to happen again. Will the Minister confirm whether that Committee has met and, if not, when it will do so? Why are the Government not acting with greater urgency, and when will they take a grip of this issue?

Anne McIntosh: The question is about how many of the Pitt report's recommendations have been implemented, so I hope that the Secretary of State will not be coy and tell us. Following the question by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), will he also confirm that the programme of work that the Environment Agency has agreed with the water companies to protect the critical infrastructure from flooding this spring—before the publication of the Bill—will not be thwarted by any outside body?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I should declare an interest as the former president of the West Glamorgan Scout Association. We are not out of the woods yet— [Interruption.] I am sorry; that was not a deliberate pun. The principle of surface water charging, whereby a proportionate element is charged to everyone for discharging water is right, otherwise we would have cross-subsidies and would have to get into the question of which organisations should be exempt. Four companies have introduced surface water charging, which, by and large, has been well received because they dealt with it sensitively. Lessons have been learned and the regulator has been fully involved, but we need to keep a close eye on the matter. The regulatory principles and the need to deal sensitively with all community associations are clear. I will personally ensure that that happens and so will the regulator. I encourage any hon. Member of any party who is currently experiencing problems to take the matter first to the water companies, and by all means to bring it to me as well.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I understand my hon. Friend's passion about the matter, but let me reiterate: United Utilities has agreed not to put a moratorium on this year's prices, but to revert to 2007-08 pre-surface water drainage charges. It will take 12 months to assess the way forward with the regulator. I have met the company chief executive and the regulator. We have also been in communication with churches, scout associations, sports clubs, our colleagues in Whitehall and fellow Members of Parliament. I welcome the pressure that has been brought to bear and the representations that have been made. As I have said, we are not out of the woods: we need to ensure that the 12 months produces an appropriate review, so that all the groups that have been mentioned are not hit disproportionately. I will keep my eye on the matter, as I am sure that my hon. Friend will, too.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I hear the calls for nationalisation, although I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Congleton has suggested that. I repeat that things have moved on in the past few weeks, but we are not fully out of the woods. Events have moved on in that the moratorium has reverted to pre-surface water drainage charges in the United Utilities area. Four companies have introduced the model of charging that we are discussing. In three areas, it has been done proportionately, sensitively and in a customer-facing way. There is a way forward under the regulatory regime.
	The call for legislation is interesting, and I assume that it covers exceptions. If we consider exceptions, I think that we all agree on scout associations, churches and community amateur sports clubs, but would we agree on, for example, consular buildings, fish farms, public houses—perhaps we would—and petrol filling stations, which had exemptions under the previous method of charging? Is that fair and proportionate? There is a way forward and we are getting there. I tell the hon. Gentleman to keep the pressure on, and we will get there.

Barry Sheerman: Is my hon. Friend aware that since the Conservatives privatised the water companies, for those who are in the Yorkshire region, as I am, it is impossible to have a dialogue with Kelder or Yorkshire Water on that or almost any other issue, because the major shareholder in private equity is the Singaporean Government, who are more conscious about surface water in Singapore than they are about surface water in England? Is that not the sad state that we are, in thanks to the privatisation that those people over there on the Conservative Benches introduced?

David Taylor: Given the Environment Agency's call this week for water meters in every home to protect against future shortages and the evidence given to our Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs inquiry into Ofwat's price review by Citizens Advice that it dealt with 28 per cent. more water debt cases last year than two years ago, does the Secretary of State agree that defining "water poverty" and standardising the charges made by companies on consumers' sewerage and water bills are essential reforms, if we are to protect ourselves against future water shortages without penalising poorer households?

Hilary Benn: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that I share the concern that he and many right hon. and hon. Members have expressed. He will also know that, as a result of our efforts, we have already made some progress on easing the impact of those regulations. I am glad to say that at the last Agriculture Council, eight countries spoke up, including the UK, to express concern, whereas previously we were part of a smaller group, so the message is spreading. The visit that Commission officials paid to the UK was important, because the Agriculture Commissioner said at the recent Council meeting that he intended to consider what further steps might be taken to ease the impact of implementation. We are putting a number of suggestions to the Commission, so I hope that we can make further progress, because it is very important that we do.

Julie Morgan: "The Map of Gaps" shows that there has been reasonable progress in Wales in terms of the criminal justice and statutory system, but many women victims still feel unable to go to the police. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a case for providing more voluntary sector services, and particularly women-only services, which women find it easier to go to?

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman really ought to look back at the answer I gave him the last couple of times he raised this issue. The de Grazia report was a considerable time ago now and as he knows, Richard Alderman has come in and made significant management changes that we are confident will take the matter forward.  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman asks what they are, but I have told him a million times. He always asks me the same question: he asks, "Aren't these changes a sign of deterioration?", and I say, "No, they are a sign of an improved management structure." He is most welcome to talk to Richard Alderman himself.

Vera Baird: I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman is asking me "Why not?" about. If he is asking me why the Attorney-General is not carrying out investigations, it is because they are done by the police; she has no separate cohort of investigating officials. The role that the court gave to her was as a means of securing the public interest. The rule of law by the United Kingdom has been set in motion by reference of the issues in this matter to the Attorney-General, so she will, in all cases received by us from any other Government Departments, carefully consider them by a proper process and decide whether the police should investigate. Any investigation will follow from the police in the normal way and of course, it is perfectly open to anyone to go to the police and request an investigation, as well.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman asked about the child poverty Bill and the equality Bill. Both will be coming forward. Not only I, as Minister for Women and Equality, but the whole Government are committed to fairness and equality. That is why we put the equality Bill in our manifesto. That is why it was in the draft legislative programme and why it will be brought forward— [ Interruption. ] Opposition Members call out, "Who's against it?" That is very good news; it is great if we can have the support of the whole House for that important measure.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the important work of the G20 summit. As he said, there will be a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer at 5 o'clock. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the demonstrations, and I want to place on record the fact that the overwhelming majority of the demonstrations were peaceful protests, with people exercising their legitimate right to demonstrate in the streets. I pay tribute to the police for their work, which included dealing with the very small minority who sought to disrupt the summit and the peaceful protest.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about the motion on the Order Paper on privilege. I do not want to delay the House for too long on that point, but the reason why I will not support the motion or bring it to the House is that it is for the police to investigate criminal matters or alleged criminal matters, and it is for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide what evidence it is necessary to bring before the court to secure a conviction, if there is going to be a prosecution. It is for the court to decide what is admissible in evidence. It is not for any Committee of this House to decide what is or is not admissible in evidence. If there is a question of the privilege of the House and the House wants to assert its privilege in court, it can do so via the office of the Attorney-General acting as amicus curiae.
	There is a difference of view between the shadow Leader of the House and me on this point. I have sought the Attorney-General's advice and she confirms my view of the legal situation. I know that the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee has also asked for the Attorney-General's advice, and on that basis no doubt that advice will be made plain. As Leader of the House, my concern is to ensure that we do not impinge on a criminal investigation, that Members of Parliament are not above the law and that we protect our privilege, but do so appropriately.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about further education colleges. I want to thank Sir Andrew Foster for the report that he has helpfully produced. He talks about the excellent programme of capital investment in FE colleges that has transformed more than half the estates of those colleges, with benefits for countless students, staff and entire communities. He says that the programme has helped the skills in our economy and added to our global competitiveness, but concludes that it has been mismanaged. The Government are considering his important and helpful report, and we will be updating the House about it.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) talked about the South West Regional Committee. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) is in his place, and he will attest that there was rigorous examination by—

Harriet Harman: I know that my right hon. Friend has a longstanding commitment to the arts and that he has a fine record as a Minister with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. He knows the importance of the film industry to this country. Perhaps that is something that he can bring to the attention of Ministers on the Monday when the House returns.

David Heath: I, too, welcome the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to make a statement this afternoon—although, had the House been sitting tomorrow, it would have been better to get a report then from the Prime Minister.
	It is likely that one of the clear conclusions of the G20 summit will be that there should be a global crackdown on tax evasion, so can we have a debate in this House on that subject? We should look in particular at the position of the British overseas territories such as the Cayman Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands, the British Virgin Islands and the Crown dependencies. We should also look at the position of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and how it treats what it describes as "high-risk corporates". That term basically means that the bigger and richer a firm is, the less HMRC will chase it for tax, and that cannot be right.
	The Home Office gave a solemn undertaking to the High Court that a statement would be made to the House before 24 April about the Gurkhas' right of domicile. We have not yet had that statement. The Budget statement is on 22 April, so will the Leader of the House tell us categorically when the Home Secretary will come to the House to make that statement?
	I wholeheartedly welcome the speedy response to the suggestion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) that the party leaders come together to talk about MPs' expenses. The suggestion was taken up by the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), and indeed the Prime Minister. Not only do those talks need to take place urgently, but they need urgently to be reported to the House, so that other Members have an opportunity to express a view. I think we all agree that something needs to be done as a matter of urgency—we cannot go on like this. It is unacceptable both for us and for the world outside.
	While we are talking about remuneration in the public sector, may we shortly have a debate about what seems to be the rapidly escalating cost of appointments to non-departmental public bodies—the quangos? It seems to me that the amount of money being given to people who serve on those bodies is going completely over the top. The leader of the Infrastructure Planning Commission is the latest: £184,000 a year for a part-time, non-executive job. That is vastly more than the Prime Minister is paid. May we have a debate on that matter?
	Last week, I drew attention to the shenanigans in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill Committee, where as a result of an incompetent Whip, feckless Labour Members and a hapless Minister, the Government lost votes, so after business questions the Whips threw all their toys out of the pram and decided that the Committee would sit all night—for 17 hours—and complete the Bill, leaving a day free. That is the politics of the kindergarten; it is not a way of seriously considering legislation business, so can the Leader of the House give me an assurance that when the Bill returns to the House on Report we will have enough time for sensible, reasoned consideration of its measures, and that she will not attempt to guillotine it so that we again have rushed legislation that has to be amended in another place?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman asked about tax evasion. No doubt that is something he can raise with the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon when my right hon. Friend makes his statement on the G20 summit. Tackling offshore tax havens has been very much at the centre of discussion at the G20 today. The Government are working internationally to make sure that we clamp down on tax havens, but we also work every year in the Budget and through the Finance Bill to make sure that we plug tax loopholes. As I announced earlier, there will be a debate on Thursday 23 April on overseas territories, when no doubt such issues could be considered.
	I will look into the question of pursuing progress on the response to the Gurkhas that the hon. Gentleman asked for. I will write to him about that, and perhaps when the House returns I will take the opportunity to tell the House if there is something substantive.
	On the question about the allowances we receive so that we can do our work as Members of the House, I refer the hon. Gentleman to what the Prime Minister said yesterday. I will not actually read out the words, but it was clearly set out that the Prime Minister was happy to have a meeting with other party leaders, that he thought action needed to be taken, that all parties could agree that the Committee on Standards in Public Life could do a good job looking at the issues and that he had asked it to speed up its review so that it could be completed as quickly as possible. That is the course of action and approach that should be taken; we should work across the parties and with the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned remuneration, both pay and bonuses, of people on non-departmental public bodies. We agree that we have to keep a careful eye on not only the pay but the bonuses of chief executives and top managers of NDPBs. This is public money, and we do not want people feeling that there has been a race to the top, following the excesses in the finance industry, that has affected pay and remuneration levels in the public sector. I agree with the sentiments that lie behind the question and reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government and all Departments and Ministers are looking at it. He will know that we seek to take action in the finance sector, not only internationally through international agreements on remuneration to tackle risk taking and excess, but also with work through the Financial Services Authority to make clamp-downs on remuneration part of its work on corporate governance.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill, which we regard as a very important measure. It will guarantee education up to the age of 18, and apprenticeships in the future for all those who are suitably qualified. That is very important indeed. The Bill contains more than 200 clauses and insufficient progress was being made in Committee. Extra time was made available for scrutiny, with many extra hours for Committee sittings, and after those extra hours progress was indeed made.

Nicholas Winterton: I fully support the Leader of the House's statement that there should be cross-party discussions on Members' pay, allowances and expenses. Will that also include details that she gave in a ministerial statement on the parliamentary pension? The Government are recommending that there should be a 1.9 per cent. increase in Members' contributions to the pension fund. That will equate to an additional £60 a month out of Members' pay. Bearing in mind that, as of the first day of this month, we have been given a salary increase of 2.33 per cent., which equates to £68 a month, is this not a most unfortunate situation? We should bear in mind that the deficit on the pension fund is not due to Members, although it is a little bit due to longevity. It is mainly due to the fact that the Treasury, as the employer, has had a contribution holiday for 14 years.

Harriet Harman: The Government are committed to the future of the nuclear industry in this country as part of a balanced and self-sufficient energy policy. We have increased the budget—something like £200 million, for example—on projects such as the nuclear development college at Workington. We are putting in a great deal of investment, and we will continue to do so.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order.

David Mundell: I apologise to the House for not being present for the start of the Secretary of State's statement, and thank him for an advance copy. I also thank him for coming to the House to make the statement, although sadly in relation to such a tragic loss of life. I, and Members on both sides of the House, echo his sentiments and thoughts for the families and friends of all those who have lost their lives, and for all those who continue to work on the North sea.
	The whole nation will share the Secretary of State's gratitude to the personnel of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the RNLI, the Royal Air Force and the commercial and marine organisations that have given their help to the search and rescue effort. The crew of the Caledonian Victory support ship performed a particularly heroic duty in being first on the scene. The failure to locate any survivors must have been very traumatic for all those involved.
	This incident reinforces to all of us just how dangerous and uncompromising a working environment the North sea is. When we make use of the oil or gas that it produces, or indeed the revenues that it generates, we must always be grateful to the dedicated people who work there. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that the health and safety of those workers must always be our priority. May I therefore ask him what he expects the timetable to be for investigating the aircraft wreckage and establishing the cause of the crash? Will he give his personal undertaking to work with colleagues across the UK Government to do everything possible to expedite as soon as possible a preliminary report from the air accidents investigation branch and the Civil Aviation Authority into what caused the catastrophic failure that resulted in such a loss of life?
	Does the Secretary of State agree with me about the importance of not substituting speculation for a technical inquiry and of distinguishing the cause of individual incidents? Does he agree that in the light of three major incidents—two in Scotland and one in Canada—within a relatively short period, a wider review of practices in relation to the use of helicopters in oil and gas exploration may be necessary fully to restore the confidence of those who have to use them?
	Is the Secretary of State aware of an issue that has been raised in the media about the decision of BP to remove beacons from individual lifejackets following a previous incident? Will he ensure that that is fully investigated so that it can be fully demonstrated whether this decision played any part in the time scale in locating those on board after the crash?
	Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to discuss with colleagues in the Department for Transport the Conservative proposal to review the MCA staff's terms and conditions in relation to other emergency services? This sort of incident demonstrates the legitimacy of their claim to be part of our emergency services.
	Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that he will work as closely as possible with the First Minister and the Scottish Government on all aspects of the aftermath of this incident that fall within the devolved responsibilities?

Alistair Carmichael: May I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement today, and may I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with his expressions of condolence and sympathy to the families of the deceased? This is not just a collective tragedy, but a tragedy for 16 individual families, and we must never allow ourselves to forget that.
	For almost 40 years, the offshore oil and gas industry has been at the heart of commercial and industrial life in Scotland, especially in the north-east of Scotland, around Aberdeenshire. Many communities have been transformed by its impact, but sadly, many have also been touched by tragedy over the years. This is not the first such incident that we have known, and it is appropriate that we remember today previous incidents, such as Brent Spar, Cormorant Alpha and the Chinook helicopter crash, which is still remembered in Shetland in my constituency. We in this place often comment on the great rewards of the oil industry: yesterday is a tragic reminder of the risks that are also associated with it.
	We are fortunate, if I may say so, in having a vast body of experience in the air accidents investigation branch, which is widely recognised not just in this country, but throughout the world. I am told that Bond has grounded its Super Pumas today. It is, however, important that we have the earliest possible practical decision from the Civil Aviation Authority whether that grounding should be of a more general application. The Super Puma has a good safety record in the industry, but with two incidents having taken place in such close compass, it is important that an early move should be made to ensure that those working in the industry can have every possible confidence in its continued suitability. Can the Secretary of State assure me that there will be the fullest and most open communication possible between workers in the industry, through the companies that employ them and the unions that represent them, and the various agencies charged with the investigation of this tragedy?
	May I associate myself and my party colleagues with the appropriate expressions of thanks that the Secretary of State has made to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the RNLI, the RAF and the officers of Grampian police, who have executed an immensely valuable and professional service? The House might reflect, however, that the coastguards praised for their skill and professionalism today are the same coastguards who had a pay settlement imposed on them last year in order to avoid their lower grades falling below the level of the minimum wage. The contribution of coastguards and the other emergency services should not be forgotten on occasions such as these.
	There will be an ongoing investigation that will involve agencies reporting to the Governments here and in Edinburgh. Whatever differences may exist between this Government and the Office of the First Minister in Scotland, there is surely nothing to be gained by anything other than the fullest co-operation between them.

Des Browne: I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement and apologise for not having been in my place to hear the beginning. I have had the advantage of reading a paper copy in the past few minutes.
	I thank my right hon. Friend for the opportunity to mark in the House the significance of yesterday's events. It is an awful tragedy. Mere words are never adequate in such circumstances to express what people feel, but they are all that we have, and I know that my constituents in Kilmarnock and Loudoun would want to be associated with the words of condolence that have been expressed in the House and beyond.
	Hardly anybody in Scotland does not know, or know of, someone who has worked in the North sea. There will not be a family in Scotland who is not touched by the terrible events that unfolded yesterday. Consequently, there will be significant anxiety throughout Scotland—I know that from the calls that I have fielded in the west of Scotland from some of my constituents overnight and this morning—for those, to whom we have already referred, who face the journeys and take the risks daily.
	I know from the recent past the risks of regular helicopter flight, but also its security in difficult circumstances. Will my right hon. Friend expand on the words in his statement about the industry's safety record, with reference to the statistics that have already been mentioned on the comparative safety of such travel in the North sea? What steps are being taken immediately to reassure people who are anxious about friends or relatives who will have to travel that that risky business—it will continue to be risky—is as safe as possible while the exhaustive investigations take place?

Jim Murphy: The right hon. and learned Gentleman raises an important point. It is too soon to close our minds to any course of action, but that matter is of course for the Crown Office, rather than for me at the Dispatch Box today. He rightly raises the wider point about the remarkable expertise that exists in our air accidents investigation branch and in David King and the team that he has assembled. I have genuine confidence that they will work tirelessly over the next few hours—and if necessary, through the night—to get to a conclusion on just what happened. What is remarkable at this early stage is the horrific, catastrophic way in which the incident happened, with no early warning—there was a brief mayday from onboard the aircraft—and with no early indication of exactly what caused it. Because of the way the incident occurred, it is essential that we come to some conclusions as quickly as possible.

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about how quickly we can come to any interim recommendations. I cannot announce that today, because as we have discussed, an element of the rescue operation is still ongoing, as is a large component of the recovery operation. Some vehicles will be being used to get close to the remains of the helicopter and to continue the search for the bodies of those who are still missing. As I mentioned earlier, if the voice and data recorders are in good enough condition, we anticipate that it will take perhaps one day to decipher, as far as we can, what happened inside the cockpit and the aircraft more generally before it came to a catastrophic end. As I have said, there was a brief mayday from onboard. Once all that work is concluded, we will be in a better position to understand the time line.
	Finally, it is important to record the fact that the chaplain and those who lead the community in prayer have opened a book of condolence in the oil chapel in Union street in Aberdeen for local people to sign. For those of us who have faith, those who have lost their lives and their families were in our prayers last evening, and they will be in our prayers today as well.

David Wright: I should like to pass on the condolences of the people of Telford to the people who have been involved in the terrible disaster in the North sea. Our thoughts are very much with them today.
	I should also like to say something about a personal friend of mine who, sadly, was killed in Afghanistan in December—Royal Marine Damian Davies. My thoughts are still with his family. He was a friend of mine, and I have not yet had a chance to raise this matter in a general debate. I want to pay tribute to all those in our armed services who are serving us so proudly around the world.
	The House needs to hear about three issues before the Easter Adjournment, the first of which is the need to establish a post bank across the United Kingdom. We have an opportunity to set up a new banking model for the people of this country, based on the post office network. I want us to build up a trusted financial institution that is not based on shareholder value or on a target-driven bonus culture for management. We need to take the opportunity of the current financial crisis radically to redesign the banking system. I am sure that the Chancellor will want to say more about that in his statement this afternoon. At present, the top four commercial banks hold 76 per cent. of all current accounts in the UK, and surveys suggest that since the commercial banks have been bailed out and supported by the Government, consumer confidence in the private banking sector has reached an all-time low. It is clear that we need to rebuild confidence in the banking sector—that is partly what the G20 summit is about—but I think that we can do more by setting up a post bank.
	Post offices would act as banks, providing a current account, a cheque book, a cash card and possibly a credit card, under the auspices of a new agency called post bank. In other European countries, such as France, Italy and Germany, it has proved to be profitable, equitable and popular. The scheme would strengthen the post office network by building up its business so that local economies—the drivers of prosperity—were enabled to grow through locally based services. Post offices would provide banking services, good quality local advice and financial help.
	I believe that there is support for this proposal across the House. It is an idea whose time has come. There are 3 million people in this country without bank accounts, and a post bank model would help to make banking services available throughout the UK. It would be a trustworthy brand on which people could rely. The Government would initially need to finance the set-up of the post bank as a social enterprise until it became self-funding; any profits would be reinvested into the bank's own operations, and moneys could be provided for community-based projects.
	In the Telford area, we could get the Fairshare credit union to work with the post bank to offer low-cost loans through the post office network. We could partner such financial organisations with the post bank, and the credit union would immediately have a new set of outlets through which it could operate. Importantly, the post bank model would ensure that post office business was protected and that the sustainability of our remaining post offices was underpinned. The Government have put an enormous amount of money into sustaining the network, and they now need to put new business into it.
	This proposal would enable us to protect our remaining post offices in Telford and across the country. It is a practical step that is backed by the trade unions, the Federation of Small Businesses, public research bodies and the National Pensioners Convention. As of yesterday, early-day motion 1082 carried 139 signatures, including my own—I am proud to have signed it. The post bank is a great idea, and I think that the Government need to move quickly on it. I would certainly be in the queue to open an account myself, if we could get the project off the ground. I do not know whether that means that I have to declare an interest—perhaps it does. I would certainly be in that queue.
	The second issue that I want the House to think about before we go into the Easter recess is the need to create and support vibrant local shopping centres. There are a number of borough towns in my constituency that need regeneration and support in these difficult times, one of which is Madeley, and I am glad to say—although some people will be shocked by this—that Tesco is doing a great job there. It is building a new store in the high street and redesigning the high street, along with other private sector partners. We have encouraged Tesco to put in a local store and to provide new shops. Ironically, we are going back to the pre-new town high street pattern in Madeley. We built a new centre—a concrete structure—that proved to be unpopular and, after 30-odd years, we are demolishing it and putting back the old high street. I very much welcome that, and I welcome the role that Tesco is playing in that scheme.
	Other local centres across Telford that need help include Dawley. It has suffered significantly from its close proximity to Telford shopping centre. We need to improve the street scene there, and we need to bring in more shops and residential units. In my view, the council should be looking at relocating some of its back-room staff to Dawley as part of the Paddock Mound development process. At the moment, the Dawley regeneration plans envisage the creation of a large amount of residential space in the Paddock Mound area, with some of the cash involved being invested to cross-subsidise the high street. We all know that the residential market is slow at the moment, and my worry is that that plan will delay the regeneration of Dawley. However, the council could step in and consider locating its back-room staff in that proposed residential area, which would bring cross-subsidy investment into the high street.
	Another town in my community that needs investment is Oakengates. I am extremely concerned about the lack of commitment to Oakengates from the local authority. We need to save the old Walker Tech building—a stunning building in the town—as well as tackling the poor environment and the dangerous parking problems in Oxford street and Market street. So far, the council has offered peanuts to the people of Oakengates, and they deserve better.
	A general theme that needs to be pursued across Telford is the introduction of street drinking bans. One thing that really deters people from going into local centres is the sight of groups of people—of all ages, it must be said—drinking alcohol at all times of the day. It puts people off and is particularly intimidating for older people who want to use the local facilities. Street drinking bans send out a clear message to the public that they should not consume alcohol in local centres as it creates an antisocial environment. Again, we need to move quickly. The council is going to consult on bringing in a street drinking ban in Dawley, after the major exercise that I carried out in which I received more than 1,000 responses from local residents. It is important that the council move quickly, and that the ban in Dawley is seen as a pilot for other areas in Telford, such as Oakengates and Madeley, as well as local centres such as Brookside, Sutton Hill and Woodside, which could also benefit from having designated areas in their local centres where street drinking was banned.
	Alongside the regeneration of those local centres, we also need to transform Telford town centre. I am extremely concerned about recent developments relating to the town centre. It was created to serve the new town and it has expanded over the years in a rather haphazard way, with new shopping arcades and other facilities being added on in a fairly piecemeal fashion. What is needed now is an overarching strategy to create a new, vibrant centre offering retail, entertainment and new housing. The strategy needs to involve all the partners in the town centre and to be led by the council, which is the strategic player.
	Unfortunately, it seems that the council and the owners of the shopping centre, Hark Apollo, are not communicating. This has been made worse by the decision of the council effectively to rewrite the strategy for the centre by selling its civic offices to Asda, thereby drawing an anchor retailer out of the main shopping centre. I welcome the fact that Asda is committed to Telford, as it brings jobs to the area and retains jobs within it. However, the move by the council to lure it from the shopping centre is a serious concern. Hark Apollo has made it clear that this is a major threat to its shopping centre and that there has been a major breakdown of communication between it and the council.
	I want to see a comprehensive redevelopment of the town centre with design continuity right across the scheme. This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get this right and the council should be co-ordinating the process, not creating a climate of crisis and recrimination. This project is vital for the regeneration of the borough and I will do anything I can to bring the parties together to talk. We should not be in this potentially disastrous position in any case. My message to the council is, "Get your act together. I will work with you and help you." My message to Hark Apollo is also fairly blunt: "You need to review your parking charges, as this is one of the reasons Asda is considering moving out of the town centre". I want the partners to come together; I believe in a strong partnership between the public and private sector. I believe that if we all work together, we can get this right and transform the centre of Telford.
	The final issue I want to address is the review of health services in Shropshire and Telford and Wrekin. I have to say that I am sick and tired of continual reviews of our local health services. We seem to have the same discussions year in, year out—and it must be costing a fortune. In the seven years I have been an MP— [Interruption.] Eight years, but in all those years, we seem to have been having the same conversation about health services in our county. It is not necessarily to do with the Darzi review or the latest trend in Government policy; we just seem to have a constant debate going on among health services managers about the structure of services.
	The clinical leaders forum in our area is leading the current review process and it has come up with proposals relating to acute hospital services. In simple terms, local health bosses seem to want to do two things. First, they want to keep children's assessment units at both the Princess Royal hospital in Telford and Wrekin and the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, but they want to put in-patient children's services on one site. That, they say, is the safest option. They also want to develop a children's care service at home.
	Secondly, the bosses want to retain A and E service on both sites, but with one dealing with the most seriously injured and ill—those involved in multiple trauma road accidents, for example. Level 1 A and E would be provided as it is now at regional centres; level 2 A and E would be on one of the sites in either Telford or Shrewsbury; and level 3 A and E would be on the other site. At present, no decision has been made about which site should have which services. The clinical leaders forum has produced a long list of four clinical options for sustainable acute services. More work is being done now as part of the consultation process. The concept of a new hospital has now emerged, located between Telford and Shrewsbury, so that it could provide all the acute services to the county.
	I have to say that this process has now become an over-complicated shambles. The public have no faith in the process and the recent interventions by the National Clinical Advisory Team have made the situation worse. Health bosses should go right back, in my view, to the drawing board—or perhaps they should take the drawing board away and leave us all alone. We should be designing health services for the people of Shropshire and Telford and Wrekin—not, I add, for mid-Wales, with apologies to colleagues from mid-Wales—and it is about time health managers got out from behind their desks in Shrewsbury and took a long look at the health needs of my constituents in Telford. A&E services in our county are often stretched to capacity at the moment between the two hospitals and many people still have to wait a long time to be seen.
	The history of hospital services in Shropshire includes a long struggle to get the status of Telford new town recognised as it grew from the 1960s onwards. Telford is the largest population centre in the county and it is a growing town. By 2026, at least 26,500 new homes will have been built in the borough of Telford and Wrekin, and the current planning review suggests that figure could expand to more than 30,000. Telford could easily grow to become a town of more than 200,000 people in the next two decades, and we need hospital services to reflect that.
	We have high levels of deprivation—worse than anywhere else in the county—and other social indicators show very clearly that hospital services need to be focused on Telford. Anyone can see the logic of structuring services around Telford. Services should not be based on how the county looked 50 years ago or even 10 years ago; they should be based on how it looks now and how it is going to look. On that note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I wish you a happy Easter?

Robert Smith: I thank the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) for expressing sympathy for the victims of the helicopter tragedy and for his support for the post bank—a timely idea taking forward many of our concerns about the Post Office, and an issue to which I shall return.
	We finally debated the economy in Government time on Tuesday. In that debate, I raised issues connected with the oil and gas industry. Later today, we are having a statement about the G20, which will obviously be about the global impact of the world economy and any global action that can be taken to restore confidence in the economic situation. During the statement, we will have a chance to discover what has come from that G20 meeting. Although the crisis is global and there are definitely global aspects to the economic crisis we face, there is no doubt that there are also local and national aspects to it. The Government had a role in getting us into the crisis and they will have a role in how we come out of it.
	On the banking system, we need to learn lessons and understand why the Canadian banks have not gone through the same crisis as UK banks. We must ensure that Government action restores the UK banking system. There is real frustration among the majority of constituents of the majority of Members that so much taxpayers' money is being poured in at the top, without them necessarily seeing any outcome at the bottom. If we speak to local businesses trying to secure the cash flow they need from the banks to keep going, we find that they are very frustrated. They are frustrated that the announcement of so many Government schemes is not necessarily followed by delivery and they are frustrated in terms of communication in that the banks do not seem to be aware of what schemes are available to assist in supporting business. We need to see a real measure of impact from all this intervention so that banks finally get liquidity flowing in the economy again. If small businesses are unable to borrow, they cannot keep the business turning over to get them through the slump and out the other side.
	One victim of the response that has had to be made to the crisis is people with savings, particularly pensioners who have been hit hard. To get cash flow going, interest rates have been slashed to near zero. That provides more liquidity for people with mortgages and other borrowings and reduces the burden on business, which is to be welcomed, but it also has a negative impact on savings and particularly on pensioners who rely on them.
	One action the Government could take—and take quickly—to restore a sense of justice on this issue would be to look at the assumed income pensioners and others on benefits could make from their savings. To assume that they can get 10 per cent. on their savings when the Bank has cut the rate to 0.5 per cent. is simply not natural justice and it flies in the face of reality. In the long run, while we want people to spend where they can in the economy, we also need to keep a savings culture in the long term. If we are to penalise people for putting money aside for their old age by assuming that absurd returns can be achieved, we are going to damage that savings culture in the future.
	Another aspect of restoring confidence would be to embrace the post bank proposal quickly and efficiently and to roll it out. Many pensioners and people with small savings want real confidence that there is a traditional banking model available where people lend money to the banks, the money accumulates and real savings follow. People do not want fancy financial models that put at risk both savers and borrowers. The post bank could be a great way of restoring confidence in basic banking, and could provide new outlets for the Post Office. As the hon. Member for Telford pointed out, considerable effort has been put into saving, or at least reducing the damage to, the post office network, and the Government have invested a great deal. Now is the time to bring in new business to give vibrancy to, and take advantage of, the network that has been saved, to avoid further closures and to ensure a viable future for the service. Working with credit unions strikes me as a important way of building on something that already exists in communities.
	The Government could take another step to restore savers' confidence, and confidence in the financial system. They could respond to the continuing concerns of the ombudsman about the handling of the Equitable Life sufferers—the victims of the Equitable Life debacle. When there is maladministration, or a failure of administration, if we do not demonstrate that something will be done about it, people will not feel confident about the regulation of the financial system in the future. A stronger response from the Government, and a recognition of the ombudsman's frustration over the handling of Equitable Life, would restore an element of confidence.
	Responding to the economic crisis involves a role for the Treasury and the approaching Budget, but other Departments should be highly aware of the dangers of excessive regulation, and of regulation being introduced too quickly at a time when people are finding it most difficult to adapt. When I was a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in the last Parliament, the point was made in evidence from the Federation of Small Businesses that while each regulation often stands up and makes sense, a wall of regulations all arriving at once places a great burden on business in requiring it to adapt and evolve. That applies during the good times, but when businesses are struggling to make ends meet and to cope with a real financial crisis, having to implement any extra bureaucracy or regulation that could be avoided imposes an unnecessary burden at a time when the other means of restarting the economy may not be working particularly well.
	Earlier today, during questions to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we heard about the European Union's proposals for sheep-tagging and the burden that that will place on many hill farmers. The Secretary of State spoke of a move to ease the impact. I think we need to know exactly how he expects that impact to be eased. When there are a large number of sheep on the hills, identifying them individually will involve extra bureaucracy, and having to work out, when a tag is lost from a sheep, which number was on it in order to replace it will mean an awful lot of extra work for a farming community that is also struggling with the financial crisis.
	Another issue raised at question time was that of our high animal welfare standards. I want to reinforce what the Secretary of State said about sound and efficient labelling. Perhaps the Secretary of State could also reinforce what he said by ensuring that such a system can be delivered, so that consumers who have put pressure on us, as parliamentarians, to operate the highest animal welfare standards can support that pressure by buying products that meet them. There is no point in putting pressure on us to achieve high animal welfare standards, and then buying products from other countries that do not meet those standards and are therefore able to undercut products that do.
	Another regulation is causing concern about the economy in my constituency. I must declare my interest in the oil and gas industry, as a Shell shareholder and a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the British offshore oil and gas industry. The group recently made a visit to a conference in Stavanger which was supported by oil and gas industry companies. I am concerned about the emissions trading phase III regulations, and the European Union's proposal for 100 per cent. of electricity generation emissions trading permits to be auctioned.
	Much of the power on the offshore oil and gas platforms is generated on those platforms. The aim of the emissions trading regulations is to encourage less use of carbon by promoting alternative sources of electricity, but the offshore platforms are not connected to the grid, and cannot simply switch to a renewable source. Buying the permits at auction will impose an extra cost on the industry, which means that, at a time when the industry is already facing difficulties, older platforms in particular may be tipped into being no longer profitable, and start to be decommissioned earlier than was originally intended.
	If those platforms are decommissioned early, nearby finds will no longer be exploitable. If we decommission early in the United Kingdom we will produce less oil and gas, but that will not affect the level of consumption; it will merely mean that we import more. The carbon leakage regulations provide a strong case for the Department of Energy and Climate Change to make to the European Union. It should say that we need to take advantage of the rules of the EU system, and that because of the carbon leakage, the North sea needs to be protected from the full impact of the 100 per cent. auction.
	Another bureaucratic nightmare for many constituents is the minefield of the IR35 regulations. Many people working in the north-east of Scotland work as contractors, and are already feeling the real heat of the economic crisis. It is unlikely that they would suffer a pay cut upfront if they were employed, but because they are contractors, it is easy to reduce their fee levels by changing the terms of their contracts. The additional bureaucracy generated by all the work involved in trying to comply with IR35 could be eased if the Treasury thought again about its impact.
	I wish to reinforce my support for the case for an early inquiry into the circumstances of the Iraq war, our involvement in it, and the decisions that led to it. Such an inquiry must be wide-ranging to enable all the lessons to be learnt, and it should be arranged on an urgent basis so that we learn the lessons as soon as possible in order to apply them to any future conflicts. It must consider the role of Parliament, the role of scrutiny of Parliament, and the way in which Parliament questions Government. It is clear that Parliament had an opportunity to prevent that war, but did not judge the information provided by Government in a way that would have allowed it to question the decision that was put before it, and to avoid the tragedy of becoming so heavily involved in Iraq in such a bad way.
	I pay tribute to the troops who have served in Iraq. They have performed the duty that Parliament asked them to perform. However, it is important for those lessons to be learnt. One of the tragedies of our having allowed the United States to distract us into becoming involved in Iraq was the fact that we took our eye off the ball of Afghanistan. That has made our present task in Afghanistan far more difficult, because the job was not seen through at the time. Having supported the intervention in Afghanistan, I hope that in our negotiations with the United States, the US will recognise the burden that we have already borne there and the importance of its troop surge in helping our hard-working armed forces—who are taking such a high risk—to deliver a better life for the people of Afghanistan, and to protect our security here at home by trying to see through a job that was not seen through properly at the time because of the distraction of Iraq.
	Finally, as the Easter recess approaches, let me take this opportunity to thank all the staff of the House who make it possible for us to serve in this place, and to wish everyone a happy Easter.

Peter Soulsby: I want to draw attention to a proposal whose implementation would have a significant effect on my constituency: the Co-operative Group's proposal to build an eco-town known as Pennbury. Although the town would be built just outside the boundaries of my own constituency, in the constituencies of Harborough and Rutland and Melton, the impact on my constituency and the people in it would be considerable, and I am anxious to record the strength of feeling among those local people before the recess.
	At the beginning of my remarks, I should declare some interests. I have been a member of the Midlands Co-operative Society, with a £20 share, for some decades and a member of the Co-operative party for some 40 years, and my constituency Labour party, of which I am a member, has recently received a £200 donation from the Co-operative party. Members will be able to tell from those declarations that I am very sympathetic to the principles of the Co-operative movement.
	I am also very sympathetic indeed to the concept of environmentally sustainable housing. During my 17 years as leader of the city council in Leicester, it was awarded the accolade of being Britain's first "environment city", and it was one of 12 communities worldwide that was invited to the Rio summit to give examples of communities that were seeking to grow in a sustainable way. I also have a long commitment to the provision of adequate affordable housing. I was a member of the then controlling Labour group in the city council in Leicester at a time when we were very proud to be building some 1,000 council houses every year.
	Therefore, nobody can doubt the fundamental attitudes with which I approached the Co-operative society's proposals to build this eco-town. I am also not unsympathetic to its desire to develop a part of its extensive landholdings to the south of Leicester for housing. When I was leader of the city council, we had a number of discussions with it about what were then its proposals for an area called Stretton Magna, not far from the Pennbury development of today, and when the Co-op came forward with this new proposal, I hoped I would be able to support it.
	In the period of almost two years since the publication of the Government prospectus for eco-towns, I have had a number of meetings with representatives of the Co-op. I have also met city and county councillors and officers, and I have looked carefully at the Co-op's publications and at the analysis of the proposals undertaken by the city and county councils in Leicester and Leicestershire. I have looked particularly carefully at the work undertaken by Halcrow, which has conducted a strategic assessment of the proposals that was published last December.
	My initial sympathy for the proposals and the proposers has changed to alarm about the potential impact on my constituency and the city of Leicester more generally, and from that alarm to a general conclusion that were Pennbury to be developed, its impact on Leicester—and Leicester, South as a part of Leicester—would be devastating. During this period, I have been particularly disappointed that, rather than engaging with the concerns that I and others have expressed, the Co-op has chosen to dismiss our questions and to rubbish the many criticisms that Halcrow made of what it described as the Co-op's "questionable assumptions".
	The Co-op's latest glossy publication is full of inspirational pictures and fine words. That is typical of its responses to the criticisms, and I will draw on it to illustrate some of my points. In it, the Co-op dismisses its opponents as
	"a small minority of people who opposed the eco-town proposal from the outset",
	and it accuses them, and by implication me, of wishing to "stifle debate". It may well be the case that some have opposed the principle, but that is certainly not true of me, and nor of many others who have tried to get proper answers to reasonable questions.
	Let me refer to one particularly distinguished critic: John Dean, the former president of the Royal Town Planning Institute and the distinguished city planning officer in Leicester in the 1970s and '80s, who served for a total of, I think, some 21 years in that capacity. He did much to shape the conservation and appreciation of the city's built heritage and to prepare the ground for its current regeneration. Mr. Dean said of the proposals for Pennbury:
	"The location of the proposal derives from the landownership of the scheme promoters and not from any rational planning process which has considered and debated alternatives."
	He has produced a detailed critique of the proposals. Much as the Co-op might like to dismiss such distinguished criticism, John Dean and many others, such as me, who have been increasingly concerned about the proposals are certainly not guilty of nimbyism.
	I have four broad and interlinked concerns: first, the development on this site will draw regeneration investment from the city of Leicester; secondly, the transport generated by it will have a totally unacceptable impact on the A6 corridor through my constituency and the A563 to the M1 motorway, and the suburban rat-runs through the constituency will be dreadful; thirdly, the tram, which has so seduced the city council, is a mirage, and many other aspects of the transportation proposals are unrealistic or unworkable; and fourthly, the employment proposals and projections put forward by the Co-op are vague and unrealistic.
	I wish to say a little more about transportation in particular. The Co-op claims that
	"the effect of the eco-town on the transport network would be minimal".
	If it has carried out studies to come to that conclusion, they are certainly not ones that have convinced the experts, Halcrow, which expressed its conviction that the transport infrastructure cannot be delivered. However, we do not need an expert to tell us that the Co-op's assertion that the impact of 15,000 new homes "would be minimal" is plainly ludicrous.
	What the Co-op has tried to do in developing its proposals is pretend that it will be possible to persuade residents of this eco-town to reduce car ownership to one car for every two households. That may be highly desirable, but it does not reflect the real world of the 21st century. Equally ludicrous is its planning assumption that it will be possible to provide appropriate employment in the eco-town to match the employment needs of 60 per cent. of the residents. As Halcrow points out, that is more that twice the so-called containment level of the neighbouring mature areas of Oadby and Wigston. Even on the Co-op's figures—which, as I have said, are hopelessly unrealistic—the location of the park-and-ride terminus at Leicester race course is in completely the wrong place and unworkable. The prospect of squeezing more cars and a dedicated public transport corridor—whether bendy buses or a tram—down the already heavily congested A6 London road, which is one of the most attractive routes into the city, with little more that some bus lay-bys and a more sophisticated traffic light system is totally incredible to ponder, and the strain on the ring road to the south of the city towards the M1 has scarcely been considered by the Co-op in any of its propaganda. Indeed, much of its propaganda is totally unreadable, with plans that are largely meaningless to the layperson for whom they are intended.
	With regard to the regeneration of the city, the Co-op has made two completely contradictory assertions. On the one hand, it claims that the eco-town will not draw regeneration investment from the urban core of the city—which, of course, it clearly will—and on the other hand it asserts that it is better to develop on its green fields because, in its own words,
	"brownfield sites are expensive to develop".
	Frankly, it cannot have it both ways. Particularly astonishingly, the Co-op claims that
	"brownfield development has also failed to deliver affordable housing".
	I could take Co-op representatives throughout my constituency and across the city of Leicester and show them many examples over many decades of brownfield sites that have been successfully developed for either Housing Association or local authority properties.
	In conclusion, the fundamental problem with the site is that, because of its proximity to Leicester—and to Oadby and Wigston, in the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), whom I was pleased to see in the Chamber today— Pennbury can never be a free-standing development with its own identity. Because of the infrastructure problems, it is totally inappropriate as a sustainable urban extension.
	Concern about the devastating effects of this proposal cross the political divide. They have of course been expressed by Members in this Chamber—by, for example, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan)—and, indeed, by members of all parties in the county council. Although members of the city council were, for reasons that are well understood locally, keen to give initial support to the proposal, they, too, gave it subject to conditions on housing, transport and regeneration, all of which it is now clear the Co-op will not be able to meet.
	As the consultation period draws to an end, I want to take this opportunity before the Easter recess to urge the Government to kill off this misguided and extremely damaging proposal at this stage, rather than allowing it to proceed and to die, as I hope it eventually will, when it is subject to scrutiny and consideration in the regional and local planning processes.
	I wish my many friends in the Co-operative movement well. I admire their determination to make good use of their assets and I have no doubt of their genuine environmental aspirations. However, on this occasion they have the wrong proposal on the wrong site, and I must defend the interests of my constituents and the city of Leicester from this potentially devastating proposal.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I mean no prejudice against those hon. Members who have spoken and who did so within their time limit, but it is apparent that it would perhaps be more to the advantage of hon. Members if I withdrew the time limit on speeches. That will perhaps give a slightly more relaxed opportunity to those hon. Members who have been patient enough to wait for the debate. I call Mr. Allen.

Graham Allen: As Parliament and MPs are being kicked around by Government and the media at the moment, it is probably worth reminding ourselves of a time in the not-too-distant past when Parliament did get off its knees, did speak for people and did seek to hold the Government to account. The two largest rebellions ever within a governing party occurred six years ago but, despite them, Parliament decided to support President Bush's war in Iraq. The last of our troops are coming home now, so it is a good time to ask the following question: what is the profit from our victory?
	Some 179 of the troops' comrades have died, as have 4,259 members of the US military and an estimated 99,500 Iraqi civilians; an extraordinary and irreplaceable diversion of focus and resources away from the real threat, al-Qaeda, has taken place—imagine what we could have done in Afghanistan to the nest of al-Qaeda had we deployed all those resources where terrorism was clearly a threat. A new home for terrorism has been created. I take second place to nobody in condemning the tyranny of Saddam Hussein—the only thing that can be said for him is that, as a result of his butchery and tyranny, his own people were so much in fear that they were not susceptible to the splinter groups of al-Qaeda and to terrorism. Even in the depths of fantasy peddled by some of the people around President Bush, there was never a proven or sustainable link to al-Qaeda. The 100,000 or so people killed in Iraq had families, and the dysfunction that has been created is the perfect breeding ground for generations of terrorists, who can take flight around the globe and make all of our lives more difficult.
	We also lost the moral high ground as a civilisation. Whether it was because of what happened in Abu Ghraib or anywhere else, our right to speak, in any sense, as superior to any other culture disintegrated very rapidly—the right was forfeited. We also smashed the precious Arab-west coalition that had been developed in the previous Iraqi war, and the United Nations—perhaps our best hope for the future—was irrevocably weakened. It can no longer summon up armies or nations to rid people of tyrannies, wherever those may be.
	That is the legacy and we all have to live with it. It must be said that not a single weapon of mass destruction—the pretext of going into Iraq—was ever found there. That is history, but it useful to learn some lessons from history. I, like a majority of the people in the Chamber today who were also here at that time, opposed the war and organised, in this place, against it. After the decision was made, I kept my counsel and ensured that our young troops, many of whom are from my constituency—I have met them in Basra and elsewhere—were not undermined.
	As we approach the sixth anniversary, I feel that some of the story can be told. Much of it reflects the grossly unbalanced relationship that exists in this place between Parliament and the Government, and there are a number of lessons that I would like the House and all Members to learn from that period. Before I touch on that, it is worth recalling that the first vote on the issue in this House, which took place on Wednesday 26 February 2003, was on the motion that the case for war was "unproven", and 122 Labour MPs voted to oppose going to war. Had the Conservative MPs voted for the amendment, war would have been defeated by 109 votes. I am not making a partisan case. The Conservative Members who voted for the amendment did so with great courage and resilience, and those who did not voted in the way that they did because they felt, openly and honestly, that that was the best way to go.
	The second such vote took place on 18 March 2003, on the amendment that the case for war had "not yet been established", and the majority of the non-payroll vote on the Labour side—139 Labour Members—voted to oppose going to war. Sometimes my friends in the Liberal Democrats inadvertently make it appear that only they opposed the war at the time. A significant number of Liberal Members voted with us on that amendment, but it was not as large as 139—the number of Labour MPs that voted to oppose going to war. Some 219 Members, from all parties, voted against going to war and another 29 deliberately abstained. Had the Opposition voted for the amendment, it would have been carried by 109 votes and Bush would have gone to war on his own.

Graham Allen: Tempting as the hon. Gentleman's offer is, I shall not go over the old ground and reopen wounds within or across parties: I am trying to tease out some of the lessons for the future. I remember that he was in the Lobbies with us on those key occasions.
	Had the Opposition not voted against, but abstained, we would have needed just 20 more colleagues to have blocked the war—so near, but so far away. Despite all the pressure, the hysteria, the whipping and the meetings with Cabinet Ministers and even the Prime Minister, the threats that the Prime Minister would resign and the accusations that people were siding with Saddam Hussein or were being unpatriotic, it is remarkable that those who opposed going to war not only maintained their opposition, but strengthened their position by the time of the second vote. That is a tribute to all those in all parties, of many different views, who felt so strongly that then was not the time to go to war.
	I want to take the House on a brief stroll down parliamentary memory lane to recall the first rebel Parliament since the Long Parliament of 1640. The Long Parliament managed to fight the English civil war and execute the King. Its successor was not so dramatic, but it forced the Executive to convene the real Parliament to debate the slide into war against Iraq. In doing so, it opened up issues that are still pertinent to the House in general, and the possibility of a serious debate on the war in Iraq that would not pick over the bones of who was right or wrong, but would ensure that we learn the lessons and decide where the balance of authority should lie between Parliament and the Executive—something that we still need to resolve. When Parliament can check and scrutinise the Executive, we will have truly learned those lessons. The question is not when the Government will allow Parliament to scrutinise the Government. It is surely a complete contradiction in terms that the very body that will be scrutinised is the body that allows that scrutiny to take place. It defies human nature to want such exposure. There has to be a separation so that Parliament can do its job properly and question any Government's decision at any time to go to war, and monitor the subsequent conduct of that war.
	Through the summer recess of 2002, pressure was building up. The then Prime Minister was scuttling over to Camp David regularly, and it looked very much as though the United States would attack Iraq, and that Britain would be involved by virtue of the "special relationship" between Tony Blair and President Bush. They gave a press conference on 3 September 2002. Tony Blair said that if the situation developed in Iraq then the
	"fullest possible debate will take place, not just in the country but obviously in Parliament and elsewhere".
	The term "elsewhere" was unfortunately characteristic: Parliament had no higher status in the prime ministerial mind than the media, the pub, the opinion polls or the focus groups. As events would prove, Parliament was not genuinely and openly involved in the process. Instead, Members had to fight to stake a claim to represent legitimately the opinions that they were hearing in their constituencies. That right was not gifted to us by Parliament, nor was it ours as of right. It had to be fought for, as indeed have almost all extensions of our rights.
	Parliament had no rights either to recall itself or to debate war powers, and the Government gave no sign that they intended to recall Parliament before 15 October even though it was clear that they were likely to take this country to war. Many hon. Members at the time thought that that would be far too late and the die would be cast. On 3 and 4 September, I wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to consider recalling Parliament, and I know that dozens of other colleagues did the same—we agreed that this would be a good thing to do—but Tony Blair has never revealed how many MPs requested a recall.
	We believed that a recall of Parliament would strengthen British policy and diplomacy; would strengthen the Prime Minister's negotiating capability with the US President; and would help to explain the issues to the country, which was deeply divided and anxious about the possibility of war. Above all, recalling the forum of the nation would allow the ventilation of the views that had been expressed to us in July, August and September. That should always be our primary role, but it cannot be our role if we cannot meet to express those views.
	Apart from writing to the Prime Minister, there is nothing else that an MP can do to get Parliament recalled. The Standing Order on the recall of Parliament—Standing Order No. 13—says that once the House is adjourned, a recall can only be achieved by representations
	"to the Speaker by Her Majesty's Ministers that the public interest requires that the House should meet".
	The Prime Minister has monopoly power over the recall of Parliament: the very person Parliament is meant to scrutinise is the only person who can authorise that scrutiny.
	Since then, I have placed on the Order Paper every day a modest change to the right of this House to recall itself—to enable Mr. Speaker, without a request from Ministers, to think carefully about whether, on rare occasions, the House should be recalled. Regardless of people's views about whether we should have gone to war at that time and about the timetable set by the President, all parliamentarians would surely have wanted the Speaker to make the decision about recall.
	In spite of growing pressure from MPs, the Prime Minister was not willing to recall Parliament. Several of us therefore began to contemplate the idea of a rebel, unofficial Parliament—an alternative assembly of MPs. If Parliament was to be vetoed, perhaps MPs could take the initiative and convene themselves, meeting as an assembly of MPs outside of Executive control. Imagine that. Although it would clearly be second best to a real Parliament, the assembly could debate Iraq under strict parliamentary rules and put constituents' views on the record. Having spoken to a number of colleagues in all parties, I wrote to every Member of the House and asked three questions: first, would they support Parliament's being recalled to discuss the Iraq issue; secondly, if Parliament was not officially recalled, would they consider attending a gathering elsewhere of MPs operating under strict parliamentary rules to discuss the Iraq issue; and thirdly, would they support a change in the Standing Orders to enable the Speaker to recall Parliament without the qualification that it should be at the request of Ministers if the Speaker were satisfied that the public interest did so require? The response was overwhelming. No fewer than 85 per cent. of Back Benchers agreed the need for an official recall, 65 per cent. agreed to come to an unofficial recall and 86 per cent. agreed that the Standing Orders should be changed, although, by agreement with my party's Whips, I did not release those figures to the media. It was clear that the demand was there for an alternative Parliament.
	On 5 September, I invited the former Speaker, Lord Weatherill, to resume his role for one day in the alternative Parliament. I also asked the then Serjeant at Arms if it was possible to hire the Chamber of this House. On 7 September, Lord Weatherill accepted the invitation to chair the alternative Parliament, which gave an immense boost to its standing. I looked for a team of Deputy Speakers and retired Clerks to support him.
	We also began to think about procedures. An alternative Parliament did not need to be bound by obsolete and inefficient traditions. We planned to try out innovations, including a microphone for every Member, working sensible hours and a strict limit of 10 minutes on all speeches, with no privileges for Front Benchers or Privy Counsellors. Our Speaker would let the House sit until MPs had spoken. For once, a late-night sitting would be justifiable. We wanted to allow MPs who could not be on hand at the alternative Parliament to hand in their speech for the record, as is done in the US Congress.
	We planned a live webcast of the alternative Parliament on the internet so that any elector could e-mail their views as they watched the debate. We even thought of a new logo—a raised portcullis, representing letting people into their Parliament rather than shutting them out. On Monday 9 September, a Back-Bench steering group of one MP from each party was created to oversee those arrangements.
	The following day we had a classic Catch-22 response from the Serjeant at Arms: he could not allow the Chamber to be used until the House agreed, but the House would not reconvene until 15 October. We looked for an alternative venue in Westminster and settled on Church House—a chamber used when Parliament was bombed in the second world war. To many MPs, that circular 600-seat chamber was actually better designed than the Commons Chamber. I was told that it would cost £6,000 for a day and fortunately my wallet was spared by offers of financial support from the BBC, the  Daily Mirror, the Rowntree trust and several individuals. We settled on the date of Thursday 19 September for the first Parliament to recall itself.
	Invitations, as many colleagues will recall, were sent to every MP and it became clear on 10 September that there would be overwhelming attendance—we had gained a critical mass of Members of Parliament who were willing to attend to put their very different points of view at that gathering. We were also gathering massive coverage in the media, and the clincher was a call from the BBC to ask whether it could cover the debate from gavel to gavel, from morning until it finished. I, along with my colleagues who were involved at that point, readily agreed to that request.
	On Wednesday 11 September—the anniversary of 9/11 —No. 10 capitulated. Robin Cook called me to concede that the official Parliament would be recalled, and so there would be no need for an alternative Parliament. Characteristically, No. 10 briefed the media before it briefed the steering group of MPs, but we were none the less delighted to have made the Executive recall Parliament, even though they were opposed to doing so.
	The alternative Parliament secured for Parliament the right to debate the Government's conduct of policy towards Iraq. That would not have happened for a further month had we not taken those steps. History will judge whether Parliament made the best use of that opportunity and whether it did enough to probe the military, political, legal and moral case for the Iraq war, or to expose the half-truths and outright falsehoods that accompanied it, as well as the lack of preparation for the aftermath—the absolutely criminal lack of preparation for victory, which meant that military victory was obtained but the peace was lost and frittered away.
	Perhaps the subject of how the votes were organised and how the opinions fell is one for another day. However, many colleagues felt that that was the first e-mail rebellion in the House of Commons. The virtual organisation that was set up to support colleagues from all parties worked very well. The names of the colleagues who were involved and who stood out on that occasion are evident for all to see in the Division lists, which are still available.
	Six years later, we still have unfinished business from the alternative Parliament, from those votes and from the decisions that were taken at that point. The recall of Parliament is still in the gift of the Executive. I still hope that all Front Benchers will seek to persuade their parties to commit to changing that. In spite of promises, Parliament still has no rights to approve war-making and the conduct of wars. The Prime Minister can still send our forces to war in the name of the Crown, as though he were Henry V at Agincourt. As we discovered in the run-up to the war, Parliament still receives no independent legal advice on the legality of war and still depends on the good will of the Law Officers even to see a brief outline of their opinion, let alone to debate it. This House needs its own legal capacity so that Members can refer to a Law Officer of their own to be sure of their legal standing when they make decisions that could come before the International Criminal Court and, in the most extreme cases, could result in charges when laws have been passed illegally because of the votes of Members. We need that capacity and we do not have it. Parliament still has no means of examining the quality and reliability of intelligence information if it is used to justify the resort to war.
	Although those issues remain unresolved, hon. Members should look back at those votes and at the genuine opinions that were expressed in all parts of the House, and should take heart from the fact that this Parliament can get off its knees and express a view on behalf of the people out there. Members of Parliament do not have to be whipping boys of the media for the sins of one or two of our colleagues. We can have our rights, we can exercise our responsibilities and we can hold Governments to account. Even though—amazingly—it is now six years since those exciting and in many ways tragic days of 2003, I hope that Members of all parties, including those who will or do form Governments, will learn some of those lessons and implement some of the changes to make this House, once again, worthy of the name of the Parliament of the British people.

David Amess: No, I certainly did not.
	All hon. Members, whether or not they use their allowance for a second home, must be absolutely fed up with all the junk mail that is put through the letterboxes. I know that these are tough times, but whether the junk mail is from restaurants, suppliers or others, it is completely out of control. Some of that junk mail can cause nuisance, distress and inconvenience to many people in all sorts of ways. It leads to a high level of waste and identity fraud. Levels of direct mail mistakenly sent to people who have moved are still far too high. I am advised that even under the best practice guidelines of the Direct Marketing Association, data management software still leads to an average of 25 per cent. of deceased persons continuing to be sent direct marketing. That can cause great distress to family members. More rights are needed to allow people to take control of their personal data and to prevent bothersome and unnecessary junk mailings.
	I have been contacted by the Swimming Teachers Association, which feels a little bit peeved that it was not involved in the excellent decision to extend free swimming to the over-60s and under-16s. The programme involves a lot of money being spent—£140 million—including on 49 development officers. It would seem prudent to involve all relevant parties, so that we can strengthen decision making on how that money is to be spent. I hope that in future, the Swimming Teachers Association will be included.
	When I was on the Select Committee on Health, I suggested an inquiry into allergies. I am raising this issue on 2 April, not in the summer. There are so many allergies that people have today; I am thinking particularly of hay fever. The availability of allergy therapy through the national health service is patchy and varies enormously between primary care trusts. Availability of anti-allergy medication, vaccines and immunotherapy is limited, and greater urgency is needed in giving devolved primary care trusts money that is ring-fenced for allergy therapy.
	I wish to mention the Kennel Club and dogs. The ability of dog owners to comply with their obligations under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to provide their dogs with off-lead exercise has been compromised by the introduction of dog control orders under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, particularly where no alternative provision has been made. The Kennel Club believes that to date, at least 120 councils have implemented dog control orders, sometimes issuing as many as 100 orders in an area, although there could well be more. Research shows that the biggest factor for owners when choosing where to exercise their dogs is whether they can exercise them off the lead. If that is not possible locally, more than 40 per cent. would drive elsewhere, despite the detrimental impact on the environment. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs guidance accompanying the 2005 Act states that local authorities should show that dog control orders are a "necessary and proportionate response". In practice, that has been largely ignored as many local authorities have taken the most restrictive approach. Furthermore, although local authorities are required to notify Natural England of any proposed dog control orders on access land, very few appear to have done so.
	I end with some good news about Southend council. I am delighted to say that the Audit Commission has given it a three-star rating; that means that it is a local authority that is continuing to improve, under the excellent leadership of councillors Nigel Holdcroft and John Lamb and the chief executive Rob Tinlin. All in all, and given the challenging economic backdrop, Southend council is doing extremely well. I join others in wishing everyone a happy, healthy Easter.

Eric Joyce: I am, too; I am sure that that has not been missed. The answer was that Members of Parliament meet their constituents and raise issues in Parliament. There were also a few other subsidiary points about the things that Members of Parliament do. However, the book did not say that we legislate; it mentions nothing about legislation, which strikes me as the oddest thing.
	I have been here for eight years. I am not the most experienced Member, but I have seen things happen and how different Members do their jobs. It seems to me that the only statutory function of a Member is to legislate. All the other stuff that we do is a matter of local style, and we do it all in different ways. Some Members have a lot of contact about council issues, while others tend to leave that to councillors. It depends on the local political context. The single thing that we do is to come here to legislate in what we think is the interest of the common weal, if I can put it in that rather aggrandised way. That is primarily what we are here for. All the party politics and so forth come on top of that; they are important, and we all have our philosophical predispositions in that respect. But the most meaningful stuff, which I like to get my teeth into—I mean constituency cases, which we all have—is that which has a direct bearing on current legislation, for good or ill. When I say "legislating in the common weal", I do not always mean our producing new legislation; sometimes it is not a bad idea to get rid of legislation when it is unnecessary.
	I shall tell a little story. Recently, I came across a case that gave me a great opportunity to look closely at a tiny area of policy that had a really marked influence on the life of a constituent—indeed, probably several thousand women in Scotland, as it happens, were affected by this legislation. A woman, who shall remain anonymous, came to my constituency surgery. I cannot remember what the original issue was, but as I was ushering her out of the door, finishing my cup of tea, she said, "It would be good if you could help me with that, because I lost my child benefit last year when my child started at the further education college." I asked her to run that by me again, because for other reasons she had already explained that she had a child who had left school and was in her second year of a course at the local FE college. The child was 17, and the woman had lost her child benefit.
	All Members will be pretty aware of what the child benefit regulations are, because lots of constituents come to us with different issues relating to them. It was immediately obvious to me that there was something very peculiar about her losing her child benefit because the child was in further education. The general principle of child benefit, which is a universal benefit, is that parents are given assistance, regardless of income level, in bringing up their children until they are regarded as adults. Generally speaking, under the regulations drawn up by the Treasury, someone under 19 and not in advanced education—not at university or an equivalent, or doing an HND, which is just below university level; in higher education, essentially—would be excluded. Otherwise, if a child—or a student or person; the word "child" can be seen as pejorative and some 16 and 17-year-olds would not be happy with it—is still under 19 and in school or equivalent, then child benefit applies.
	This woman's 18-year-old child was doing an HNC at Falkirk college, which is now called Forth Valley college, it having absorbed the colleges in Stirling and Alloa. Some Members may not be immediately acquainted with that development, but it was very important in my area. It is a fabulous college with a really good recent inspectorial result. I thought that the case was peculiar, so I looked into it. The girl is planning to become a nurse, so she is on a pre-nursing course. She is doing that instead of being in the sixth form, so she will end up with a qualification that is the equivalent of advanced highers in Scotland—the equivalent of A-levels down here. Her mother therefore should not have lost her child benefit—that was clear as a bell to me as soon as she said it.
	I checked up on the situation. Some of this stuff is devolved because education is devolved in Scotland, but the child benefit regulations are not. It is a question of having different qualifications across the UK. The relevant institutions—the Scottish Parliament and, I guess, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly—have to say that their qualifications are equivalent to certain English ones, and then the child benefit regulations are drawn up accordingly. There is a table in the child benefit regulations, which are drawn up by the Treasury and implemented by the Department for Work and Pensions, laying out non-advanced and advanced qualifications. It is pretty clear-cut. On one side are GCSEs, or standards in Scotland, A-levels, BTECs in England, and so forth; on the other, degrees, HNDs and so forth.
	The Scottish HNC is a one-year qualification, full-time, or a two-year qualification, part-time. In England, what used to be called an HNC is essentially a part-time HND, which is a two-year course. An HND is an advanced course and an HNC is a non-advanced course—the equivalent of a BTEC in England. It transpires that the officials in Scotland seem to have missed that detail and agreed with the Treasury that an HNC is an advanced qualification. The DWP therefore assumes that all these students will be going into the second year of their two-year course in colleges all over Scotland, and effectively disqualifies their parents from child benefit.
	That has implications. Child benefit is a gateway benefit, so my constituent not only loses child benefit but a number of other benefits. I will maintain her anonymity by saying that she has an unusual benefit that I had never heard of before, which is not constrained by income. In total, this woman was losing about £8,000, not taxed, in the one year when she was wrongly disqualified. That is remarkable. I suspect that in my constituency—I am taking a stab here—several hundred people will be affected. Although most people doing HNCs are returners, quite a few do them as an alternative to sixth form, and they are clearly a BTEC equivalent. People in Scotland are being treated differently as a consequence.
	I wrote to the Treasury, fully expecting a big barney, and I have now met the relevant Minister—the Financial Secretary. I hope that this is not too presumptuous of me, but I think that they agree. They would not have had much of an argument because the Scottish Qualifications Authority—a fabulous, very efficient organisation that my sister works for, so I always have to say that—has a diagram that simply says that the Scottish HNC is the equivalent of an English BTEC. The peculiarity is why, when the Treasury fired this process up in the first place, it was agreed that they were equivalent when a difference should have been spotted.
	For the moment, the outcome is that the Treasury is taking a careful look at the matter. I hope that it will make a correction and move the qualification across the line—I think that it is doing so—so that in the coming year, people who were previously disqualified from child benefit and other associated benefits will qualify. There is, of course, the question of what happens to my constituent, whose child will have finished the course by then. The effect will be that several thousand people in Scotland—mainly women, but it is not necessarily women who take child benefit—will benefit to the tune of somewhere between £1,000 and £8,000, which is perhaps what my constituent would have received, in one financial year. That is a significant bunch of cash, and it depends on a tiny detail. I cannot really blame the Treasury because lots of stuff is going on, and there is a lot of complexity in the vastly important bits of legislation it is dealing with.
	Reflecting on my laborious entry into this position, given the generous amount of time we seem to have available—

Eric Joyce: I hear what both of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are saying, and it is not necessarily the same thing.
	What I was banging on about was this: in this place, one can do a lot as a Back Bencher, looking at legislation and picking things up instinctively. If something seems as if it is not right, quite often it is not. Often that is just the way it is; we do not get perfect solutions to everything. Constituents may come along and say, "That person gets a certain benefit, and I do not. We are on either side of a dividing line—why is that?" It is not really possible to say, "There is a continuum, we have to draw the line somewhere, and that is just the way it is." The most difficult thing to say to a constituent is often, "I know that it's not really fair, but that's just the way it is. I am not saying, "Life's not fair", but sometimes, by definition, legislation will be a bit clunky, and there will always be marginal cases that are unfortunate, which we cannot do anything about.
	In this case, however, we could do something about it. I think that the outcome will be fine, but when I reflected on the meaning of the case from a political perspective, I saw that something else was going on, apart from the fact that the Scottish civil servants had apparently responded badly. It did not seem to happen at the political level; as far as I can see it happened because of an official's error in Scotland. I do not think that it was just a case of someone being slack.
	There is a different mental process going on in Scotland at the moment. I am not obsessed with the whole devolution/independence/non-independence nexus but it is interesting to see how civil servants in Scotland operate differently in the new political context, and that is not necessarily healthy. Recently, I had to write to the Scottish Executive to inquire about some detail in this case. It is purely a constituency case—it has no party political basis, and it would not bother me if it had. I am quite keen that the Government should change the rules, and if they do not, I will continue to say what I am saying now. I wrote to Historic Scotland, staffed by civil servants, and I got a super, professional response from the experts on the ground. They are the experts in the nexus of planning, building, history and all that stuff. Those experts are ultimately employed by the Scottish Government, with a link to the UK Government. The civil servants there engaged with me—they said that they did not make the decisions, but explained how the process worked and the sort of the thing that could be expected. They explained how people would logically respond and gave their views as experts, emphasising that Ministers might not take the same view and so forth. I therefore got a good steer from the professionals in Historic Scotland—the response was first class. I met them and they took me through the stuff. Ultimately, they are civil servants and they work essentially for the Scottish Government, not the UK Government, although there is a clear link.
	That was contrary to my other experience. I do not blame civil servants for that—it is the culture and the way in which they have to work in Scotland now. I used nursing as a way into the problem. I could have used engineering, but I chose nursing because many people doing the HNC were doing the nursing version and then going into nursing education. The scheme is a combination of policy, knowledge of education, especially higher and further education, and so on, so the people who pulled it together are essentially the civil servants and experts who work under the auspices of the Scottish Government. Sometimes they work for agencies and sometimes as conventional civil servants in a conventional Department.
	I wrote to a civil servant, explaining that I had a problem and that I was not sure whether I had the right end of the stick, and asking for a heads-up or general idea of whether what I said cohered. I phoned initially and got a call back saying that the relevant official would ring me, perhaps before the end of the day. However, instead, I got an e-mail saying that there was some concern that I was a Member of Parliament rather than a member of the public so the query had been referred to the official's boss. It became clear through a series of e-mails that those—doubtless excellent—civil servants were afraid to have any communication with a Back-Bench Member of Parliament who was making inquiries about a legitimate constituency case, with no party political intent. I appreciate that it is difficult for people to make that judgment, but I was putting a fairly technical argument, and it appeared easy for a person with a good bit of knowledge about the subject to give a professional opinion.
	I ended up getting a letter or an e-mail from someone more senior in the organisation who said that civil servants were not permitted to communicate with Members of Parliament. Even worse, I was told that if I wrote to the Minister, the civil servants would send me a description of the procedures in Scotland. I was in a position whereby, as a constituency MP, I could not ask the experts for an opinion. I was not asking about procedure, because that is a matter of wiring diagrams and so forth. I knew the procedure like the back of my hand—that is how I perceived the problem in the first place. However, as a constituency MP in Scotland, I could not ask the Government a technical question and get a technical response.
	The difference between the two examples, which I have given at some length, is that Historic Scotland is an agency in its own right. People can describe it better than me, but I would say that, although it is an agency and therefore works for Ministers, it has self-confidence as a professional body with its own professional integrity. If people ask it questions, the staff will give their professional opinion, while stressing, "You can quote me if you want but I might be wrong or people might disagree." They are confident in giving their professional opinions. However, there are other parts of the civil service in Scotland, which are much more sensitive and work at the direct command of Ministers. Unlike civil servants in Departments here of whom I have asked technical questions, those in Scotland appear to have been told not to speak to Opposition Members of Parliament. As a constituency MP, trying to get at something to which there is no corollary here because the expertise is in Scotland, there appears to be significant dysfunction.

Sarah Teather: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. My constituency, along with his, will be affected by increased noise as a result of the expansion of Heathrow. I might well return to that point later.
	It is as though we are trying to compartmentalise climate change into one conference and one meeting, and to turn it into something that can be discussed only at that meeting. By taking it away from the economic reform agenda, we are encouraged to think of it as a special case that we come together to talk about and which we forget about as soon as we leave the meeting. In so doing, we demonstrate that we have failed to grasp the seriousness of the problem that we face.
	The issue in that film that stood out and left the most lasting impression on me was the story of the young Nigerian woman, Layefa Malini, who wanted to become a doctor. She lived in the Niger delta and suffered the consequences of the oil harvesting, the pollution and the poverty in the area. She told of the challenges in her life as she wrestled with the problem of putting together enough money to enable her to go off and study. She described the impact that that had on her, and her choice to give up fishing in order to sell oil illegally just to make enough money. That story left me with an overwhelming sense of how we live in excess here, and of how much poverty there is elsewhere in the world. That sense of injustice struck a chord with me, as did the impact of climate change on the poorest people in the world.
	We often talk about climate change as an abstract thing, a scientific debate involving international jargon and diplomacy. Frankly, most of us cannot get a handle on it. I have a degree in natural sciences, although if I am truly honest, I must say that much of the science involved in the climate change debate leaves me cold. However, the image of the poorest people in the world, who are likely to suffer the consequences of what we are doing, strikes a chord with me. They are also likely to suffer first and most profoundly. I suspect that that would be a galvanising force for most people if they really understood the consequences of what we are doing to the poorest people in the world.
	Climate change will affect us all, and it has no respect for international boundaries. It is the poorest people in the developing countries, who are already held back by a chronic, sustained lack of resources and power and by poverty that limits choice and security, who will first, and most profoundly, experience the consequences of what we are doing here. Developing countries are the most vulnerable partly because of their geographical position and partly because so much of their population is reliant on rain-fed agriculture. Also, many of those people live in appalling living conditions.
	Poverty exists regardless of climate change, but climate change is already creating a vicious cycle that will rob people of their ability to improve their own situation. It threatens to wash away much of the progress that we have made towards achieving the millennium development goals. This ought to be a matter of serious concern to the Government, as they have made the delivery of those goals a key plank in their own international priorities, but that is being undermined by our failure to tackle climate change in a serious, sustained way.
	Natural disasters already happen more often in developing countries. If we look back at the natural disasters that happened in the 1990s, for example, we can see that in the eight years between 1990 and 1998, 94 per cent. of the world's 568 major natural disasters happened in developing countries. That ought to give us pause for thought. People in those countries are more vulnerable to their effects because they often live in very poor-quality, overcrowded accommodation. They are susceptible to losing their homes, and their water sources tend to be polluted. It is not only the major disasters that have an effect, however. The more subtle changes will also have devastating consequences. Crop yields are predicted to fall by as much as 50 per cent. in some African countries by 2020 because of the impacts of climate change.
	The story of Layefa Malini, which I mentioned earlier, struck a particular chord with me because I visited Nigeria last summer to work on a project with Voluntary Service Overseas. I visited the capital Abuja while I was working on an education project. I then travelled north to Kaduna and Kano and south into Enugu, so I saw people living in very different conditions. We moved out to visit some of the rural areas outside Abuja and saw the problems people faced because of lack of water. People living in those villages will be particularly affected if rainfall decreases and they are unable to get clean drinking water.
	Kano, one of the most northern places in Nigeria right on the border up near Niger, has a very arid climate, but it is also prone to flooding during the rainy season. Niger has already experienced the devastating consequences of desertification as the Sahel moves further into areas occupied by people. Many people have been forced to flee into Nigeria, looking for a method of making a living. North Nigeria experiences the consequences of displaced people moving from Niger into Kano and neighbouring areas.
	I saw the consequences of flooding during the rainy season when I was in Kano. Along with many other areas in the developing world, Kano does not have a sewerage system. Sewage moves through trenches in the road, effectively, sometimes just a few inches below the path people are walking on. It does not take much water to wash that sewage out into people's homes, on to footpaths or into the road. When it rains in Nigeria in the rainy season, it really rains. People quickly find themselves walking through one or two feet of water, all of which is sewage-infested water that transmits disease, making it miserable for people to live with. Drinking water, in as much as there is any, becomes quickly polluted with sewage and rubbish.
	One particular problem I noted in Nigeria was the failure to deal with rubbish in a sensible way. I am afraid that landfill is often actually open rubbish in the streets, and flood water washes toxins from rubbish straight into any drinking water. Even if the water is boiled, it is often still too toxic to drink.
	The young woman shown in "The Age of Stupid", Layefa Malini, lived in the Niger delta region—an area we expect to be particularly affected by coastal flooding. It will be even more difficult for people living there to eke out a living as their farm lands become less and less inhabitable. It is not just Nigeria, as Ethiopia and Kenya have already experienced the devastating consequences of drought. Those two countries are predicted to be the first in line for climate change impacts, with lack of rainfall and effects on food security.
	In Africa, the intergovernmental panel on climate change predicts that water stress will affect between 75 million and 250 million people by 2020, which will rise to 350 million to 600 million by 2050 if we do not take dramatic action on climate change. Of course, as I said, changes in agriculture lead people to change where they live. Many people living in rural areas find that they need to move into towns and cities in order to make a living. It is often young members of a family who are asked to leave for the towns and cities to try to send money back. Charities working in Cambodia have said that that can have a real impact on disease, with many people previously living in rural areas—perhaps mainly the young—moving into cities, but then returning with HIV or other infections, which are brought back into the rural areas. Clearly, the impacts of climate change are much more profound than just a bit more rain or heat.
	We can also expect dramatic changes in conflicts as the competition for resources becomes more and more acute. In 2007 and 2008, because of rising food prices, we witnessed food riots in more than 30 countries. International Alert has estimated that in more than 46 countries, which are home to some 4.6 billion people, climate change, in conjunction with existing problems around economic and social issues, will create a very high risk of violent conflicts.
	The consequence will be increased migration, internally displaced families, and families moving across international borders, most likely to other developing countries that are ill equipped to deal with an influx of poor people. We think of refugees as a problem that we face here, and of course the Government have been keen to drive down the number of people trying to claim asylum in this country, but if we were really serious about wanting to reduce that number we would make a more serious effort to tackle the causes of poverty and conflict, and to prevent conflict from arising in the first place. It is not our country that bears the burden of looking after refugees, but other, poor countries that are ill equipped to do so.

Shona McIsaac: I sometimes wonder whether I have done something to upset the gods of democracy—whom we can rename the Whips Office for the purpose of this analogy—because today is my wedding anniversary and I find myself in the House of Commons Chamber. Also, tomorrow is my birthday, and last year this debate fell on my birthday. It therefore appears that I am not allowed out of this place to enjoy such events.
	There are, however, several issues that I want to bring to the attention of the House and Ministers in advance of the Easter recess. The first of them is a very local issue: the Humber bridge. Indeed, most of the issues I shall raise will be extremely parochial, in contrast to the international themes raised in the speech of the previous contributor, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather).
	The Humber bridge links my Lincolnshire constituency with Yorkshire on the north bank of the Humber. At the beginning of March, there was an inquiry into a proposal to increase the tolls to cross the bridge by 20p each way. I presented evidence at that inquiry against the toll increase, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) and the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart). More Members of Parliament would have given evidence had we not been the only three whom the Whips Office allowed out to give evidence at the inquiry. However, although only three MPs from the region appeared, we put our case forcefully and stridently on behalf of our constituents.
	Everybody in my area has opposed the increase in the bridge tolls. As I am sure Members can appreciate, in any economic climate, let alone the current one, people do not welcome having such an extra pressure on their purse. People from across the political divide were saying that to the inspector. However, my concern and the reason I want to raise the issue today is that the public inquiry was at the beginning of March, has not reported yet and obviously has to go to the Secretary of State for Transport, so constituents have been left in limbo, not knowing whether the inspector will approve the increase in the tolls.
	This issue is vital, because there is an ongoing campaign about the tolls to cross the Humber bridge. The four unitary councils in the surrounding area came together and commissioned research to show the tolls' economic impact on our area. Everybody had said anecdotally that the tolls were a barrier to economic development and growth. However, the report showed that empirically, so we now have very strong evidence to enable us to present to Ministers the case that the tolls were holding back the economic development of our area. The campaign is therefore ongoing. Putting aside the 20p increase, which everybody is against, people generally want the tolls reduced in order to get rid of this barrier.
	Three options are available as a way forward. There is a debt from the building of the bridge because the money was borrowed from the public works department. However, despite the fact that over the years, the tolls have paid off the original amount borrowed, because of interest the debt keeps rolling on like some huge behemoth and we never seem to be able to pay it off. The campaign is concerned with the Government's writing off the remaining debt owed to the Treasury arising from the money borrowed to build the Humber bridge. As I say, the capital amount has been paid back already from the tolls. However, that leaves the question of the repairs to, and the maintenance of, the bridge, and this is where the options come in.
	I was quite surprised by the outcome of the surveys that I conducted on this issue. The first of the three options is to write off the debt and for the Government to take over responsibility for the Humber bridge, paying for all the repairs, maintenance and so on. There would be absolutely nothing left in the way of debt, and free crossings for everybody—wonderful! The second option is to write off the debt and to pay for repairs and maintenance through increasing the council tax. The third option is to reduce the tolls substantially to, say, £1 per crossing, and the money raised could cover the cost of repairs and maintenance.
	I thought that the majority of people would go for the "nothing to pay" option, but in fact, most went for the token amount. Some 75 per cent. of people said, "Paying a pound would be okay, and that would cover the repairs and maintenance." Interestingly, virtually nobody thought that it would be an excellent idea to increase the council tax to cover the repairs and maintenance, although there was one person—I think he knows who he is—who suggested that we bring back the ferry that used to connect the village of New Holland with the city of Hull. He was the only person who wanted that.
	We presented the case to Ministers through Adjournment debates in the Chamber, but because the inspector has not reported on the 20p increase that the bridge board wants to introduce, we cannot bring delegations from the business community and local authorities to Westminster to press the case for reducing the tolls overall. We are, in essence, in a state of limbo.
	I hope that my raising the issue today means that the message will work its way through the system, so that whoever needs to know about it realises that we need to take this issue forward, particularly in this economic climate, and that the inspector reports and we can then make progress on our lobbying to reduce the tolls.
	What is gratifying about this campaign, which will be ongoing, is that the bridge board, which has been somewhat reluctant in the past to agree with Members of Parliament on the issue of Humber bridge tolls, has understood the weight of opinion in the area for reduced tolls; it has seen the empirical research commissioned by the councils showing that there would be substantial economic growth if that barrier were reduced. The board itself has said that it would like to try out, for perhaps a year's trial period, a toll of £1 to cross the bridge. Its view has come into line with that of the people campaigning on this issue, but we cannot make progress on this because we have not yet had the report. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will make sure that the right ears hear that particular plea.
	Last night, a debate on business rates took place in the Chamber, during which I said that if there are job losses in my constituency, as I believe there will be as a result of this double taxation on certain core businesses in the port of Immingham, the hinterland of the people involved will be cut because of the tolls on the Humber bridge. For someone who has lost their job, the idea of paying more than £5 for a return to cross the bridge will make them think again about applying for a job on the other side of the river. To many of my constituents the whole area on the north bank may as well not exist. The travel patterns were part of the research conducted, and it was demonstrated that the toll was a substantial barrier. People do not cross the bridge to access training, so it is also hindering their opportunities. I feel that it also affects social mobility in our area. I know that people turn down jobs on the other side of the river because they do their sums and work out that they will spend more than £1,000 a year in tolls.
	I have just been talking about the toll for cars, but the Humber bridge is one of the only major toll bridges where there is also a charge for motorbikes. The toll for freight is phenomenal and, because of the cost, businesses avoid taking jobs that necessitate crossing the river. That is why it is vital in this economic climate to see whether something can be done to give a stimulus to economic growth in that part of the country. The Government have said that they will do all they can to help British businesses through the economic downturn, and acting on this issue would be an excellent way to give a boost to my part of the country.
	I believe that I mentioned my next local issue in a previous recess Adjournment debate; the regulars here will doubtless groan when I mention compensation for former distant water trawlermen again —[Interruption.] I hear the Deputy Leader of the House groaning. I am sure that many a burly ex-trawlerman would not take kindly to that type of groan from him. This is a serious issue, because these people lost their livelihoods as a result of a Government decision at the end of the cod wars to refuse the generous quotas being offered by Iceland; their fishing grounds were no longer available to them, they came home to port and they had no livelihood. For years, they campaigned for compensation, and it was only in the late 1990s that that was agreed. Our community greeted that news with great delight. My father was in Iceland at the time as a member of the Royal Navy, doing fishing protection work rather than as a trawlerman. Sadly he is no longer with us, but he always used to say that it was a great injustice that the trawlermen had not received any compensation.
	The scheme was introduced and people were paid up to £20,000, but there was a serious loophole. None of the experts or the people on the ground in our community noticed it, but it meant that some people were paid nothing or had their compensation substantially reduced because of what are called breaks in service. If people had a break of a certain number of weeks in a long career, they lost compensation. The scheme was probably set up like that in an attempt to copy the redundancy rules, under which if people work in a factory for 10 years, leave for three months and then come back, they have broken the continuity of employment. But of course in the fishing industry the labour was pooled, and people were given a ship if one was available, so it was a fragmented way of working. Someone might get a job, go away for a few weeks, come back and be off for some weeks. That meant that some people were excluded from the compensation scheme.
	We have recently had some success in addressing that problem, and the Government have amended the original scheme to try to put right that injustice. However, we think that we have found another flaw in the system. I hope that we do not go ahead with the rules for additional payments with that flaw. The problem is that the new rules propose that the only people who will be eligible for the compensation are those who applied under the original scheme in 2000. If people applied and they received no compensation or a substantially reduced amount, their cases can be reconsidered. However, in Grimsby the local authority funded some advice workers to help the former trawlermen with their applications, and they told some of the potential applicants not to bother applying because they would not qualify under the rules. So those ex-trawlermen never applied. Only those who applied at the time will be eligible. I hope that that issue will be addressed, because it would be a gross injustice if the new scheme—which was meant to put right an injustice—excluded those people.
	The consultation on the scheme still has a few more weeks to run, and I recently had a marvellous meeting with more than 100 former trawlermen to involve them in that consultation. We held the meeting in the national fishing heritage centre in Grimsby, which is a marvellous little museum, and we were able to introduce the men and their families to what is, in effect, their centre. Many of them had not been using the centre. In a lovely gesture by the centre, which also gave me the use of the facilities for free, all the former trawlermen who came that day have been given a free pass to the centre so that they can bring their grandchildren and other relatives and show them what it was like in that industry, which created the great port of Grimsby—Grimsby fish is still known around the world.
	My next point is to do with a consultation, again. People will begin to see why I am raising all these subjects today—a feeling of inertia arises when consultations are under way, and when people do not have the answers and cannot move forward until they get them. This consultation concerns the siting of Travellers' sites in North Lincolnshire, one of the two local authorities that cover my constituency. There has been quite extensive consultation, which is now closed, and I submitted comments on behalf of my residents. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole and my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) also commented on the proposals. Of course, we are left not knowing what the result will be or when we will find it out. We need to consider that fact when we have consultation processes or public inquiries. It is all very well to have a statutory consultation period—fine, we can all work with that—but why is there no statutory period in which we have to be told the outcome? That would be my plea, as it would give people certainty that they will get their answers.
	I now want to talk a little about school meals in north Lincolnshire, in the Grimsby and Cleethorpes areas. I have campaigned for a number of years to improve school meals. One of my grandmothers was a school cook, who cooked marvellous food. My father was a cook in the Navy, so that is something that is clearly in the McIsaac family blood. We like our food, we like to cook and we want to ensure that everybody else enjoys good food, too.
	I have campaigned to improve the school meals in North East Lincolnshire. Sadly, several years ago the council let schools decide whether to keep kitchens or to get rid of them. A number of schools got rid of their kitchens and offered sandwich options or baked potatoes. I campaigned with parents, with the schools and so on, and took the issue up with Ministers. Everybody has been very supportive of the idea of introducing the improvements. Ministers have been marvellous and listened to the case that we presented for funding to bring back the kitchens and put good food back on the menus.
	I do not have any problems with that, but then things became absolutely ludicrous. After all those years of campaigning, the Department for Children, Schools and Families said that they were going to be running pilot schemes for free school meals for all primary age children. I thought, "Hallelujah! That is exactly what I have been campaigning on for a number of years." In the current economic climate any saving, even a saving of this nature, will be a real bonus for families. North East Lincolnshire council was invited to be one of those that ran the pilots, but it turned around and said, "No". The schools say that they would love the scheme, the parents support the idea and the Members of Parliament think that it would be a good idea, but the council says that it does not have enough money, because the scheme is match funded.
	Ideally, I would like the Government to consider running some pilot projects that are not match funded, as that would help councils that find themselves in financial difficulty. My North East Lincolnshire county council is in that position: it was one of the negligent authorities that lost £7 million when it invested that amount in Icelandic banks just days before the collapse.
	I am told that that loss has had no impact on the council's decision not to produce the match funding that would ensure free meals for primary school age children. However, the council has other investments and the money is there, so I do not understand its approach. I hope that the Department for Children, Schools and Families can do something to help, either by setting up a fully funded pilot or simply by telling the council to get its act together.
	I want to speak about a couple of other subjects, and the first is ministerial correspondence. I shall not name the Department or the particular Minister involved, but I am getting heartily fed up of sending almost fortnightly reminders, especially given that it can take nearly four months to get a reply to my original letter. That is not acceptable. I keep apologising to constituents and telling them, "Sorry, the Minister hasn't replied yet and, yes, we are reminding him," but nothing happens. I also do the other normal things, such as putting down parliamentary questions asking when to expect replies to correspondence dated X, Y and Z, and I get the usual little letter that appears in response, but it is never just a one-off. With some Departments, the process is continuous, and that is wholly unacceptable.
	Another problem is that the quality of the response often leaves a lot to be desired, even when I am writing on behalf of pensioners. For example, I once wrote to a Minister about illiteracy and adult literacy, and all I got was a very short reply to the effect that the information that I needed could be found by clicking on a website. I am sorry, but that is not good enough. It is not the sort of response that we should be sending out to constituents.  [ Interruption. ] I can see that the gods of democracy—that is, the Whips—on the Front Bench are giving me the evil eye. That probably means that the Chancellor can now come to the Chamber to make his statement. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) is eager to take part in the debate as well, and I will not deny him his chance.
	Finally, I want to talk about circuses. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) mentioned certain animal welfare issues, and my constituents are not particularly happy that a circus will be coming to Cleethorpes over Easter. There are always protests, and allegations of cruelty to the animals. I believe that the circus has managed to get hold of some elephants this year, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe spoke about this circus when it visited his constituency some weeks ago.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, I was a member of the Committee considering the Bill that became the Animal Welfare Act 2006. My memory may be affected by age—it is my birthday tomorrow, so there is another year to add on—but, unless it has gone completely, I seem to recall that the Government said that regulations or something would be brought forward to stop the exploitation of performing animals in circuses. Years later, however, the circus is still trundling up every year. The animals are still there and every year there are allegations of cruelty. In this day and age, surely we can resolve the issue once and for all. That type of entertainment belongs in the past.
	With that, I wish everybody a wonderful Easter break. I am not in competition with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) in this Adjournment debate. She always extols the virtues of her constituency and invites Members to spend some of their holiday there. Tiverton is lovely—my great-granny was from there. I have no qualms about people going to Tiverton, but I invite Members to the Lincolnshire coast, to see Cleethorpes and the wonderful delights of that part of the country—but not the circus.

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

John Horam: I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the supermarket ombudsman, because a large Tesco is opening in my constituency shortly. Does he not feel that part of the problem is the local planning authority, which is often suborned into agreeing to Tesco, and allows a store to be built in the wrong place, because of the money involved? Is not that a real problem, as well as how the supermarkets behave?

David Drew: It is, and it is a separate issue about which I feel strongly. I only wish that the ombudsman could take on those responsibilities—at least by holding the ring for those who wish to complain about the unfairness of the way in which out-of-town stores are developed far too easily, with all the damage they do to our town centres. The ombudsman's role is clear, precise and easily laid down, and it is up to the Government to deliver that through the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. They must stand behind the Competition Commission and make sure that the commitments made are delivered. We must not allow the supermarkets to do what they usually do by threatening all manner of legal challenges, and of course they will say that the ombudsman will damage prices and the way in which they operate. We know all too well that they have had the field to themselves for far too long, and there needs to be some rebalancing.
	On fuel poverty and energy efficiency, I was tempted to intervene on the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) because I agreed with many of the things she said. Her hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) introduced the Fuel Poverty Bill, which sadly did not make progress when it came before the House. Issues were raised about the Bill, but it must come back into play, and it should be part of a reorganisation of what is a good news story for the Government. I am proud of the amount of money we have put into addressing fuel poverty, but we could spend the money more wisely, and make even more impact. That is the basis of the current debt review, but the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, of which I am a member, is about to publish a report on that topic, so I shall be circumspect about what I say.
	We have to pay attention to three areas. First, there is a plethora and confusion of initiatives, which need to be simplified so that the householder is clear about what is on offer, what they should be paying and who is capable of delivering it. Secondly, neighbourhood renewal delivery should be the major mechanism involved, instead of a pepperpotting of money, which is wasteful and not nearly as effective as it could and should be. Thirdly, we need to recognise that the millions upon millions of hard-to-heat homes that we are left with—where older people often reside—will be more difficult to deal with, and we will need special measures. The cap on the amount of money and the limitation on properties that are more difficult to deal with must be addressed because we cannot afford to have the most vulnerable living in properties that cost enormous sums to heat, which has an impact on a climate.
	I shall finish by talking at more length about an issue that has exercised me for much of the last year. I have been wary of mentioning it in anything other than an oblique manner, but I am pleased to say that it has become a topical issue. Anyone who heard "File on 4" a couple of weeks ago knows that the programme considered the number of school staff who are currently suspended, or who were suspended and subsequently lost their jobs. I will not go into all sorts of cases or case law. I am pleased that the Children, Schools and Families Committee has announced an inquiry. I will submit evidence to it in May, and I have spoken to the Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who knows how strongly I feel about the matter.
	I want to bring two cases to the House's attention. I will not use names—the people are well known in my area and I believe that they have suffered enough. However, I will set out some of the problems that occurred as a result of what transpired in each case.
	The first case involves the head of a secondary school in my constituency, who has been suspended since November. There are genuine concerns about the basis for his suspension, which dates back to an Ofsted report. Interestingly, the report was critical of the governance of the school, but not of its management. It was therefore surprising that the head was suspended. Since then, there has been an exercise in trying to trawl for information to use against him, much of it on the basis that he is guilty of bullying and harassment.
	I have known the individual for more than 20 years—indeed, the accusation will be thrown at me that he is a friend of mine. I am proud to call him a friend. In times of need, one does not deny friendship, and one takes up the case. I will continue to bat on his behalf, although the process is difficult. One of the saddest aspects is that he was prevented from watching his son play rugby because his son attends the school. He was told that he was not welcome, not only on the premises but on the sports field. That shows how totally the process can envelop someone.
	Since the suspension, the individual has been able to talk to officials on various occasions, but denied the opportunity of talking to governors lest he contaminate those who will eventually make the judgment on his right to continue as head. Interestingly, the teacher union in the school chose to carry out a trawl of its members.
	My main criticism—I will deal with three criticisms when I have outlined the other case—is that there is an imbalance between those who are trying to prove their innocence and those who claim that the individuals are guilty and get the process under way.
	I am sad because the case has done enormous damage to the school by setting people against one another. We are now well into the fourth month, and the case needs to be resolved urgently. However, all I know is that the independent investigation continues and that when and if the case is heard, the individual will have to provide evidence in his defence. Sadly, he is much on the defensive and unable to prove his innocence because so many of the cards are stacked against him.
	The second case is that of a head of care at a special school—not a teacher, and, in many respects, unable to have some of the protections that teachers enjoy. The person has been in education all their life and at the school for 27 years. The case resulted from the suspension of a head teacher, and the local authority, Gloucestershire, called in the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children to carry out an investigation. I question that decision because the original charge was to do with someone else—the head and his management style—yet the NSPCC was called in and conducted an inquiry. I have written to the local authority because I would like to see the evidence that the NSPCC came up with. I have been forbidden to see it. Even more important, the individual in question has not been able to see it, even though it is the basis of the charges against him. After he and the head were suspended, both the deputy head and, eventually, three other members of staff were suspended, so at one point six members of staff were suspended. All that will have had an impact on the school.
	It is very sad, because that individual was dismissed and lost his job. He subsequently got a job at another school with the same authority, but the head of that school was effectively told to get rid of him. Since then, that individual has been reported to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, which will effectively take him away from any contact with children if the complaint is upheld. That is wrong. His only recourse now is an employment tribunal. He is preparing for that now, so I will be careful not to say anything that might in any way preclude his ability to prove his innocence.
	I have three worries about how the system operates and about how people have to try to prove their innocence, which is vital. The first point that I would ask my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House to look into is the process of investigation. Whoever conducts an investigation, if one is held, whatever is found should be available to both parties. I am convinced that the defendant, as it were, does not have the same access to that evidence. That is not acceptable. We would not have the prosecution not disclosing evidence to the defence in a court of law.
	My second point is: who oversees the investigation? We seem to have a flurry of governors being created—some because of the contamination, and so on.  [ Interruption. ] I am now being given the nod by the Whip, so I will finish quickly. I want to know what power the local authority has to increase or change the governing body, because that can change the basis on which someone's inquiry is held. I know that we have an inquiry and an appeal, and subsequently someone may choose to go to an employment tribunal.
	My third point is about proportionality. In both the cases I have raised, neither individual had a blemish on his record. They had not been called in for a verbal warning, let alone a written warning, but both went straight on to suspension, on the basis that they would subsequently be dismissed. That shows a lack of proportionality. It also shows poor management, in that if those people were so guilty, why were they not hauled before somebody previously?
	Those are grave issues. I will raise them in much more detail before the Children, Schools and Families Committee, which I congratulate on trying to address them. For too long the issue has, unfortunately, been swept under the carpet. Other heads have been suspended for other reasons. Sadly, such events are not unusual. Something is wrong and something needs to be done about it.

Shailesh Vara: The right hon. Gentleman may say that, but I am minded to say that after a drink or two he might confide in honesty, and say that he was also concerned that one of his own troops was having a go at the Government.
	The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) raised the very topical issue of climate change and the environment. That is clearly a major topic for all of us. I must also give her credit for making a very caring and compassionate speech. She referred to the film, "The Age of Stupid". I am unsure whether she is aware that the star of that film, a gentleman by the name of Pete Postlethwaite, has an award and has said that he will consider returning it if the relevant decisions are not taken at the G20 summit. Clearly therefore, the statement we will shortly hear from the Chancellor is not only important in its own right and will have an impact on what we have to say, but it will influence whether he decides to return the award, which was given to him by Her Majesty.
	No one will have failed to take note of the hon. Lady's comments about her visit to Nigeria; she spoke of sewage-infested water and the horrific diseases that can flow from that, as well as the lack of water and food supply generally in Africa.
	It is a sobering thought that, as she mentioned, in the 21st century there are some 30 countries in which food riots have occurred. Unless we do something drastic to address poverty, migration and all its consequences will have a huge impact. This is an enormously important subject that the whole House will recognise needs to be dealt with. The G20 summit conclusions are following shortly, and perhaps there will be some hints as to the way forward on food poverty.
	I compliment the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who intervened on the hon. Member for Brent, East to speak about religious tension and intolerance. We all recognise that the world has enough problems in trying to feed, and provide water and shelter for, everybody. I am sorry to say—I think the House will agree with me—that there is increasing incidence of religious intolerance in the country that the hon. Gentleman spoke of, Nigeria, and worldwide. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West spoke of the increasing incidence of anti-Semitism. That is a serious issue and we must not address it simply in terms of what is happening overseas; we must look at the possibility of, and real existence of, intolerance of minority communities in our own country.
	The hon. Member for Cleethorpes spoke today, as she regularly does in these Adjournment debates; she is a very familiar face. I congratulate her on her wedding anniversary today and wish her a very happy birthday for tomorrow. I hope that, in arranging her constituency engagements for Saturday and Sunday, it has been borne in mind that she has two celebrations in the preceding 48 hours. She raised the issue of the need to reduce the toll charge on the Humber bridge. She was right to point out the economic consequences of the decision that will eventually be forthcoming from the inspector's report, which is awaited with considerable expectation.
	The hon. Lady raised the issue of compensation for trawlermen and cited some harrowing instances of people who, quite innocently, seem not to have put in their applications. I hope that the small print in the agreements will allow for those left out of the scheme to be considered as well. She also gave a wonderful tourism promotion for her constituency, as she always does. It was good that she acknowledged my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning), who is not here today, in that promotion. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be grateful that, despite her not being here, her constituents nevertheless got a tourism plug.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge gave a fine speech. I am sure that his constituents will want me to note what an excellent and hard-working constituency Member of Parliament he is. I was heartened to hear that his mother is well, or was well when he began his comments; we all felt for her at the last such Adjournment debate. However, I am very sorry to learn that she is back in hospital with an ankle injury. On behalf of the whole House, I ask him to convey our thoughts to her and wish her a speedy recovery. We are all pleased that the quality of food is a lot better than it was last time round.
	My hon. Friend raised a very good point about disabled people and the facilities they have access to—and, as was made clear, often do not have access to. The inconsistency of service for this large sector of our community—some 10 million people—needs to be addressed. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that the Speaker's Conference is examining ways of ensuring greater representation for disabled people in this House, but we parliamentarians need to ensure that outside this place we give full recognition to the very serious concerns and needs of those 10 million people.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge mentioned the horrific practice of organ trafficking. I am trying to host an event in the House on tackling organ trafficking—I am just waiting for the proper date to be found—and I hope that he will be able to take part in it. He also mentioned photography, on which he made an excellent speech in Westminster Hall yesterday—it has received widespread publicity and I thank him for it—and again he made some valid points. May I say, on behalf of the whole House, that we very much look forward to seeing his return to the House fully fit after making his contribution for the Lords and Commons rugby team? He spoke of a potential by-election, but I am sure that the House would miss his wit, charm and general brilliance, as well as his generous contribution to those of us who seek to be slipped in the Whips Office.
	The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made a passionate speech, and I believe that the House will agree with the points that he raised on sympathy for those in fuel poverty and on energy efficiency. He talked of the plethora of institutions and initiatives, and the confusion that they often involve, and we note those two points. Two other fine contributions were made by my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and for Stone (Mr. Cash). They kept their comments brief and I shall keep my comments about their contributions brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish you and the House a very happy recess.

Chris Bryant: It is good to see so many Members gathering in the Chamber to hear the culmination of this debate, which has been a great one—just two lawyers have spoken. That reminds me of the fact that in 1697 Tsar Peter the Great visited these Houses of Parliament. When he walked through Westminster Hall he was perplexed to see so many lawyers and he said that he thought that in his dominion there were only two and that when he got back home he was probably going to execute one of them. It has been great not to hear from too many lawyers today and excellent to hear from 15 former councillors. Those involved have represented Islington, Leicester, Reading, Redbridge, Wandsworth, Powys, Wrekin, Oakengates, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hackney, Stevenage, Stroud, Gloucestershire, Stonehouse and Warwickshire.  [Interruption.] And Aberdeen.
	I should apologise for suggesting in the equivalent debate at Christmas that these debates when we all gather together were rather like episodes of "'Allo 'Allo!" —the same characters rehearsing the same lines—because today's debate has been more like an episode of "The Vicar of Dibley". My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who is not in his place, is the Councillor David Horton; in the same way as the character really loves the vicar of Dibley but tries to pretend otherwise, my hon. Friend really loves the Labour Government, despite the fact that in his speech this afternoon he was trying to pretend that he does not. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) referred to how much she loves food, and she is the Letitia Cropley—perhaps I am being a little unfair, because my hon. Friend's father was a naval chef and thus I am sure she would not be known as the poisoner of the village.
	We heard from the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who is, as I am sure all hon. Members would agree, Frank Pickle—the very dapper member of the parish council who manages to move from the inconsequential subject to the consequential one without anybody noticing a change in his tone of voice. Frank Pickle could bore people on end with the subjects of how exciting it was when the pub completely and utterly ran out of crisps or the milkman arrived 47 minutes late. We have also heard from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), who must be the Alice Tinker of the House; she never quite gets the joke—I see that she is not getting it at the moment either. She has been sitting there pouting, and she is pouting again now. She rather reminds me of when all the young girls in Dickens's "Dombey and Son" are taught how to pout by saying quietly to themselves the words, "Prunes, prism, poultry and potatoes." The hon. Lady must have been a little confused today because we have had both the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar) in the Chamber at the same time, and she once confused them when my right hon. Friend came canvassing at her door. The hon. Member for Uxbridge—or perhaps I mean my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley—is of course Jim Trott, the "No, no, no, no...yes" character in "The Vicar of Dibley". He certainly looks like him. More importantly, he looks rather like the older employee of the Grace brothers, Mr. Grainger.
	We had important contributions to the debate this afternoon from many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright), who referred to his hopes for a post bank, and early-day motion 1082. We are keen for the Post Office to do more and put more banking products in the reach of everyone, to promote greater financial inclusion. We are also keen on the idea of introducing street drinking bans, and the designated public places orders system that we have introduced has enabled many local authorities to restrict antisocial behaviour in local areas, with more than 700 such orders having been made.
	The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) raised the issue of those who have savings and the assumed income of 10 per cent. I am sure that that issue is something that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who is now in his place, will consider. The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of sheep tagging, and I am sure that he is aware that DEFRA and the industry are concerned to ensure that disproportionate costs are not introduced.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) raised the important issue of the proposed eco-town in his constituency, and I am sure that the Co-operative Society will have been listening. The hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson), who still has four YouTube Christmas messages on his website—that is the wrong religious festival—raised the issue of irresponsible lending. It is a shame that he was not able to read the document "Freeing Britain to Compete", produced by his party, which stated:
	"In financial services, we should allow people to buy and sell products that are not regulated if they have signed to do so"
	and
	"it is the lending institutions rather than the client taking the risk."
	It is the hon. Gentleman's party that is opposed to regulation, not this party.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North raised important issues about our troops and paid tribute to our armed forces, and I am sure that all hon. Members share those sentiments. Our concern is to ensure that at all times our troops have the support that they need, both moral support from this House and financial support.
	The hon. Member for Southend, West raised a series of issues and I shall write to him and ensure that they are all taken up with the relevant bodies. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce) raised issues relating to child benefit and how it applies in Scotland, and I shall write to him as well.
	I am afraid that I disagreed with the hon. Member for Brent, East on many of the issues that she raised, although I am sure that all hon. Members agree that the problem that the poorest will suffer most from climate change is one that we need to address. We are proud that we are the first Government in the world to introduce binding legislation to tackle climate change.
	We wish my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes well for her wedding anniversary and her birthday. She raised the issue of the Humber bridge and I shall ensure that that is taken up. On the issue of compensation for trawlermen, we hope that the new scheme will be ready before the summer recess.
	Many other Members made important contributions, not least the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and for Stone (Mr. Cash), my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and—my personal favourite—the hon. Member for Uxbridge. I am sure that the Chancellor will be glad to hear that the latter thinks it behoves us to go out and spend.
	I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I send good wishes for Easter to all those who serve us in this House—the Clerks, the Doorkeepers, those who provide food, those who occasionally serve us with a glass or two of wine or beer, the police and all the security services. I wish you in particular, Madam Deputy Speaker, a very happy Easter.

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is a major step forward, but, as I said before, it is important that as people leave London tomorrow, they start to make sure that everything we have agreed to is delivered.

Alistair Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is important. That is why we should continue to do everything that we can here to help people who lose their jobs. It is important, too, that we remember the effect of public investment in transport, for example, of which he will be well aware. And who knows? One day, I hope not in the too distant future, we might get to visit the bridge that he has advocated for so many years. I certainly look forward to seeing it one day, as I think that I approved it.

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he is right to say that we have an opportunity to capitalise on our exports. We produce very good quality exports and it is therefore important that we have markets in which to sell them. For example, one of the reasons why we support Germany putting money into its economy is that we sell goods into Germany. We also sell goods into developing countries. When people ask why we are concerned about what is going on in these other economies, the answer is quite simple. It is because our exports, and therefore our jobs, depend on them.

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to ensure that we support older people—people who have retired. That is one of the reasons why we introduced pension credit, which helps about half the pensioner households in the country. It is also why we made a £60 payment to pensioners earlier this year in order to put more money in their pockets. I am sorry that he opposed that.

Phil Wilson: I am grateful to have secured this Adjournment debate on science and innovation in Sedgefield. It gives me the opportunity to describe how the area has changed over recent years, and how it has reached out and grasped the technologies of the future that, only 10 years ago, belonged to the pages of science fiction, but which now are the fledgling companies of economic growth based on cutting-edge technological advances and innovation. That statement is not one usually associated with an area of the country whose traditional image remains, for a lot of people, one of coal mining. Today, I want to challenge that traditional view.
	The slag heaps and pitheads have gone now, and those who are not from the area would find it very difficult to identify where they once scarred the landscape, because of the excellent reclamation work done by Durham county council. Even today, I am asked on occasion in London, when people realise I represent a constituency in the north-east, how long it takes to get there by train. "Does it take five hours?", they ask. In fact, it does not. To Darlington, my usual station stop, the train journey can be less than two hours 30 minutes from King's Cross.
	I have heard it said that the location of the centre of science and innovation in Sedgefield, at NETPark, is not geographically correct because it is away from other centres of research and development, such as Oxford and Cambridge. I put such a statement down to a lack of understanding of what is going on in the area. It ignores the fact that Durham university, only a few miles away from Sedgefield, is one of the best universities in the world. If I may say so, that statement is infused with just a hint of regional snobbishness. The north-east is not on the other side of the world, and in our globalised economy the world is at our doorstep, not even a train journey away.
	The last coal mine to close in Sedgefield was at Fishburn in 1974, some 35 years ago. The local coke works, also at Fishburn, closed in the mid-1980s. Both have gone, leaving a strong sense of community behind, but as I said, those who are not from the area would not know where the slag heaps and pithead stood, or where the chimneys at the coke works belched their stench into the sky.
	Less than a mile to the south of Fishburn, on the site of an old psychiatric hospital, stands a cluster of less imposing buildings that are none the less important for the future prosperity of my constituents, County Durham and the north-east as a whole. This is NETPark, which is to play its part in creating a knowledge economy in County Durham in which tomorrow's jobs can be created today. It is fair to say that the north-east still faces significant economic problems, and although we are in the midst of a global economic downturn, progress has been made locally. Educational attainment levels are improving. The number of adults with qualifications and the number of businesses per head of population has increased above the national average. Today, there are 590 apprentices in my constituency; in 1997, there were, on average, only 20 per constituency.
	NETPark is part of the north-east's strategy of building on those foundations by expanding the knowledge economy in the region and attracting high-value jobs with roots in the region, so that the prosperity of the north-east can grow. County Durham and the north-east have some world-class economic assets such as Durham university, which is ranked amongst the world's top research institutes. The university has strong links with NETPark and is one of the primary reasons why NETPark is now seen as the most important science and technology park in the north-east.
	What does the development of the knowledge economy mean for County Durham? The County Durham economic strategy 2008-13 sets out an ambitious programme, which underlines the importance of science and innovation for the county by growing the base of science and technology businesses. The most important ambition—it is starting to be realised but there is still much to do—is to commercialise the county's knowledge base and to increase the rate of spin-out and start-up companies emerging from NETPark, while working with One North East and others to address financial and other barriers to commercialisation, including manufacturing capacity.
	The vision for me, as someone who has lived in the area all his life, is to ensure that the traditional industry of coal mining upon which the economy of County Durham was built over generations, and for which the county was known and is still remembered, is replaced by the traditional industry of science and innovation; and that, because of home-grown expertise, knowledge, imagination and determination, that industry remains a tradition long into a future in which change is a constant because of innovation, and the opportunities offered become part of the community, because cutting-edge opportunities are the way of life in the community. That will not happen overnight, but I do not see why such ambition cannot be realised in the long term.
	NETPark is one of the key drivers in achieving that ambition. Let me tell the House about NETPark and what it has to offer. It was opened in 2004. The park was developed by Durham county council and is managed and promoted by County Durham Development Company. Its main focus is on nanotechnology, photonics, microsystems, energy, medical technology and printable electronics. The park is overseen by an advisory group, including One North East and the vice-chancellors of five universities in the north-east.
	Let me describe just three of the technologies under development. ROAR Particles plc is a company based on the park. It is dedicated to the research, development and manufacture of nanotechnology-derived particles for forensics and counter-terrorism. The company has world-leading patented technologies that are not only superior to existing commercial products, but produce a whole new range of analysis. Using the particles as a powder, they can identify chemicals within minutes from a fingerprint, thus helping with the elimination of suspects and saving the police time and money.
	Using the ROAR powder, fingerprints can be used to identify whether the person has been in contact with explosives, whether he or she smokes, has taken drugs such as cocaine or is using prescription drugs. Further research is under way to allow fingerprints to reveal the person's gender, ethnicity and age. I have also been told that, over time, the technology will be able to tell from a fingerprint what someone has had for breakfast.
	Kromek uses a unique process for producing semiconductor crystals that dramatically reduces the cost of manufacturing X-ray scanners for security and medical applications, and improves the quality of the images and the speed at which they are produced. The company has attracted several millions dollars-worth of investment from US equity firm Amphion Innovations and is in talks with BAE Systems, the European Space Agency and Philips. The company opened on NETPark in January 2005, at which time there were two employees—today there are more than 40, and that figure is set to rise to more than 250 within three years. The company has won awards for its revolutionary work in colour X-ray technology and its development of X-ray explosives scanners.
	The Printable Electronics Technology Centre— PETEC—was opened last month by the Business Secretary, Lord Mandelson. As part of the opening celebration that week, 200 visiting chief executive officers and leaders of businesses from 10 countries attended a two-day event at PETEC, which shows the importance of, and the high regard for, the contribution that the UK and PETEC are making to this technology. PETEC was established with a joint investment of £6.3 million from One North East and the County Durham Economic Partnership, which included £5 million from The Northern Way. A further £3.8 million of capital investment was sourced from the European regional development funds, and the Technology Strategy Board contributed £2.1 million towards the first platform of equipment installation in the centre.
	Printed or plastic electronics are set to revolutionise consumer electronics with the introduction of electronics printed on to plastic and paper products; there will be an impact across most sectors—the automotive, retailing, energy, health care, design and fashion sectors—from new low-energy lighting and flexible rollable displays, among other applications. I am pleased that PETEC is the UK's high-tech, national centre for the development of the printed electronics industry.
	The UK is often criticised for being good at early stage science and invention, but poor at commercialisation. The scale of investment needed to develop new concepts to the point of commercial revenue is typically 60 times that of the initial research spend—many products and many small companies fail at that stage. PETEC has been set up to provide support for this type of activity. It works hand-in-hand with universities and industry to drive the exploitation of this technology, and by de-risking this early stage of development, it will greatly increase the rate at which plastic electronics will be delivered to the wider market place.
	At this time of global economic downturn, the introduction of new and innovative products is exactly what is needed to persuade the consumer to start purchasing again and to encourage the economic cycle to move on. This emerging industry is addressing those very issues. The launch of PETEC is the UK's latest substantial commitment to this sector. PETEC has already become involved in accelerating the commercialisation of new products by incubating early applications with industry—both small and medium-sized enterprises, and large companies. The Government and One North East are to be celebrated for realising this opportunity at this time.
	Last week, the Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills published "Engineering: turning ideas into reality", a report that used PETEC as a case study. It also highlighted the importance of this technology to the UK economy, when it stated on page 31:
	"IDTechEx—a company that provides global analysis of the printed electronics industry—estimated that the worldwide market for printed electronics will increase from $1.18 billion in 2007 to $48 billion by 2017 and $330 billion by 2027".
	To put it bluntly, I want a piece of that action for the British economy and the economy of the north-east of England.
	The impact of PETEC on County Durham has already been felt. Following a strategic operations review in 2006, there was a serious prospect of the closure of Thorn Lighting in County Durham with jobs transferred to eastern Europe. That was averted by the intervention of the County Durham Development Company and One North East, which led discussions with Durham university—PETEC—and Thorn's parent company, Zumtobel. In consequence, 600 jobs were safeguarded and a previously manufacturing-only facility has had 10-plus research and development jobs created so that the company can access PETEC and university facilities and expertise.
	The Select Committee report that I mentioned earlier recommends, in paragraph 130m that
	"the Government...engage with the plastic electronics community, and...articulate a strategic vision for the development of this innovative industry."
	Can the Minister tell me how his Department intends to engage with the industry? Can I ask him, or his ministerial colleague Lord Drayson, to meet representatives from PETEC, the County Durham Development Company and others to discuss the potential that both PETEC and NETPark offer, and to travel to Sedgefield to see the vision in person?
	Lord Drayson, in his oral evidence to the Committee, said:
	"The next six to nine months is going to be very important indeed for SMEs. The opportunity is there to work with the financial institutions to ensure that, particularly in the £200,000 to £2 million range of funding, we make sure that adequate capital is available."
	The Select Committee report at paragraph 118 also states:
	"However, a thorough review of the support offered to businesses as they transition from early stage R&D to manufacture may be required if UK companies are to be world-leading in production rather than just research."
	Can the Minister let me know his view on those points raised by the Committee and can he say what progress has been made in securing capital in the £200,000 to £2 million range from financial institutions? Those issues could be potential stumbling blocks in the future.
	The Government are to be congratulated on the work that they have done in securing revenue streams for the science and innovation field that were not there before.
	I want to see NETPark develop and offer employment to people in the area whose families probably came to Sedgefield over the generations to work down the mines. Those jobs should not just be cleaning windows and cutting grass, but innovative jobs so they can have work in the traditional industries of the future. In those jobs, my constituents should be able to learn new skills and, although change might be a constant, it should not be change that they fear, but change that they can enjoy because they are in control of it and because they too are part of the knowledge economy. That is why I strongly endorse this Government's approach to education for the many, not the few.
	I also want to welcome NETPark's role in developing what is called an innovation connector, which will help engage local businesses, establish science networks and engage the local community. Innovation connectors provide a particular geographical focus for science and innovation activities, which will drive overall regional growth and at the same time boost the regeneration of a particular locality. They will enable the development of world-class facilities and new approaches to integrating business and universities, and will engage communities, particularly through education, awareness raising and access to employment programmes.
	The innovation connector will be either located within, or in proximity to, localities that are experiencing particular disadvantages and which have limited cohesion with more prosperous parts of the region. Specific actions will be implemented to align investment and enable these excluded areas and groups to access and benefit from investment in growth. The concept is intended to link areas of need directly to new areas of opportunity.
	As an identified innovation connector, NETPark is being supported through public funding with European regional development fund match funding to enable expansion and connectivity with other regionally funded activities and the local community. The programme of activity is drawn together through an investment plan, with a potential ERDF investment of up to £14 million. These projects are in development and there is no certainty that they will be successful in their application for ERDF and other funding. However, it is anticipated that a number of them will proceed to delivery.
	As NETPark grows in importance I want to see it become an integral part of the local community, and for there to be a sense of ownership and civic pride in it. That will come when jobs are created as the park grows in size and importance. NETPark is a real success story for Sedgefield and County Durham. It is a true centre of excellence in science, technology and engineering that will be a key driving force behind the county and the regional economy in the future.
	We are going through a global economic downturn. One day that will end and facilities such as NETPark, where the public and private sectors have worked together, will stand astride a burgeoning landscape of science and innovation ready to take on the 21st century. NETPark's vision is to be a world-renowned science park, leading developments in the commercialisation of research and development in electronic and related technologies and spinning out manufacturing and service companies across the county while connecting the whole of County Durham as a science park via NETPark Net, which will connect NETPark to businesses in County Durham and the rest of the region. Finally, it hopes to be the home to high-value business throughout the county, offering job opportunities for local people.
	Although clean coal technology should have a future, the coal industry in County Durham will never be the same as it used to be, although the principles of compassion and solidarity remain in our communities. The coal mining era in Sedgefield has ended—may the new era of science and innovation in Sedgefield begin.